





























































































































































































































































Class ST" 1 0 1 

Book_ 

Copyright __ 


COPYRIGHT DEPOSm 










8>mt of (Bah 


* 


IN THE 


Mtmmnxt JJrfljiIfmfls 

AND IN 


THE GOSPELS 


BY THE 


leu. iatttel IF. Morgan 


> *> 
*> * > 




) 


ANCHOR LINOTYPE PRINTING COMPANY 
144 HIGH STREET. BOSTON 




Nihil Obstat : 
Patrick J. Waters, 
Censor Librorum. 


Imprimatur : 

*WILLIAM CARDINAL O’CONNELL, 
Archbishop of Boston. 

March 1, 1915. 



DEC 14 1315 


© Cl. A 4 18 0 9 

9*0 •/ ‘ 


COPYRIGHT 










Table of Contents, 


SECTION i. 

JESUS, THE CHRIST, THE INCARNATE SON OF 
GOD, OF THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES. 

CHAPTER I. 

_ The Prophecy Argument. The Prophets, and their Extant 
Writings. Heterodox Jews of the Middle Ages, and Modern 
Rationalists of the School of Wegscheider on the Old Testa¬ 
ment Predictions and the Messiah. The Existence in the Old 
Testament of Ancient, and Genuine Messianic Predictions, 
Illustrated by Five, Clear, and Definite Statements concerning 
the Future, Personal Christ. 

CHAPTER II. 

The Implications of God-Man Messiahship in the Predictions 
studied in the Preceding Chapter, conjoined with the Explicit 
Assertion in Psalm II, 7, of the Natural, Divine Filiation of 
the Christ. Rejection of Supposed Traditional Worth of the 
Teaching on the Royal, Man-Messiah in Vogue in the Temple 
in the Time of Jesus. Why the Orthodox Jews, and the Con¬ 
servative Protestants of the Present Day should admit that the 
Divine Sonship of the Messiah is the Sole Principle of the Cor¬ 
relation of the Messianic Predictions in the Canon of Esdras. 


CHAPTER III. 

Modern Biblical Critics on the Messiahship of Jesus. The 
“Messianic Secret.” The “Eschatological Messiahship.” The 
“Messianic Consciousness.” The Admission that Jesus called 
Himself the God-Man Messiah. The True Meaning of His Mes¬ 
sianic Declarations in the Gospels, as they stand in the Bible. 
Fact and Worth of the Testimony of the Writers of the New 
Testament on the Fulfillment of the Messianic Predictions of 
the Old Testament in Jesus. The Evidence afforded by those 
Writers of the Fulfillment in Him of the Six Predictions pre¬ 
viously considered. How the Fulfillment in Jesus of these Six 
Predictions demonstrates their Supernatural Character. Why 
their Supernatural Character demonstrates the Divine Sonship 
of Jesus, the Messiah. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued 


SECTION II. 

JESUS OF THE GOSPELS THE INCARNATE SON 
OF GOD. 

CHAPTER I. 

The Gospel Argument. Preliminary Review of the Various 
Kinds of Attacks upon the Historical Value of the Gospel Life 
of Jesus. The Most Dangerous of all Attacks upon Gospel 
Truth. The Attitude of Rationalistic “Higher Criticism” to¬ 
wards the Authenticity of the Declarations of Jesus of the 
Gospels about His Own Identity. The Apparent Defence of 
the Testimony of the “Historical Jesus” of the Synoptic Gos¬ 
pels against the Declarations attributed to Jesus in the Fourth 
Gospel. The subsequently manifested Attempt to curtail the 
Statements of Jesus of the Canonical Synoptic Gospels. The 
Authorship and the Worth of the Four Gospels Vindicated by 
Sound Criticism. 


CHAPTER II. 

First Point—The Testimony of the Church, the Decisive 
Proof that Jesus of the Gospels is the truly Historical Jesus. 
The Gospels a Portion of the Written Archives of the Church. 
The Church the Sole, Authentic Interpreter of the Declara¬ 
tions of Jesus. Faith, Church, and Gospels. 

Second Point—The Divine Sanction of the Truth of Christ’s 
Self-Revelation. The Prophecies of Jesus. The Inferences 
from the Fact of the Fulfillment of those Prophecies. The 
Miracles of Jesus. The Transfiguration. The Raising of Laz¬ 
arus from the Dead. The Resurrection. The Extraordinary 
Deeds of Jesus, collectively considered, evince themselves to 
be Miraculous. The Exercise of Supernatural Power in the 
Name of the Father, and as Mouthpiece of God. 

Third Point—Jesus of the Gospels, the truly Historical, and 
the divinely attested Jesus, declared His Divine Sonship di¬ 
rectly, and, as it were, independently of His Messiahship. The 
Catholic Sense of Five Formal Declarations of Divine Sonship 
vindicated against “Higher Criticism” and “Modernism.” The 
Supreme Self-Revelation. Practical Demonstrations by Jesus 
of the Precise Meaning of His Declarations of Divine Sonship. 
Recapitulation, and Conclusion. 



PREFACE 


This work undertakes to illustrate the fact of the 
Divine Sonship of Jesus. The reason for its appear¬ 
ance is the apparent need for a logical, and serviceable 
compendium in English, utilizing pertinent, scientific, 
catholic works in foreign languages in the demonstra¬ 
tion of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, as well as critically 
discussing the original sources of those Jewish, or Gen¬ 
tile errors against the identity of Christ, which have 
had renown in their day. Of course, the theories of Har- 
nack, and of Loisy about Jesus “the Christ, the Son of 
God” must receive most attention at the present time. 
These men are undoubtedly profound in their mis¬ 
guided scholarship. They display the greatest respect 
for the sublime character and mission of Jesus. Their 
treatment of His declarations of Messiahship and Di¬ 
vine Sonship is exhaustive, dignified in tone, and har¬ 
monious in expression. They exert themselves to the 
utmost to understand, and to portray the filial con¬ 
sciousness in Jesus of unique proximity to God, His 
Father. Nevertheless, as they themselves frankly con¬ 
fess, their mental horizon excludes the divinely inspired 
Messianic Predictions as impossible, and the divinely 
revealed incarnation of the “Logos” as incredible. 

In accordance with its aim, and scope, this work 
is divided into two sections, which, however, in fact, 
and by necessity, dovetail into one another. The first 
section strives to show why and how the fulfillment in 
Jesus of the historically verifiable parts of the Mes¬ 
sianic Predictions of the Old Testament necessarily im¬ 
plies in Him the God-Man Messiahship. The full texts 
of the Messianic Predictions being found ancient, au- 



8 


Preface. 


thentic, integral, and clear in sense, the proof of the ful¬ 
fillment of the prophecies about the time, place, birth, 
life, work, and death of the Messiah rests upon the tes¬ 
timony of competent, and truthful eye-witnesses. The 
test of the divine origin of complete content of the Mes¬ 
sianic Predictions being the proof of the fulfillment of 
those descriptions of the Messiah, which lie within the 
domain of history and experimental investigation, it 
follows that Jesus, the Messiah, is the Incarnate Son 
of God. In confirmation of the reasoning in this first 
section, the utterances of Our Blessed Lord Himself 
upon His Messiahship are introduced. The historicity 
of the books of the New Testament is presumed in this 
section, especially since the argument in the second sec¬ 
tion in regard to the written archives of the perennially 
living “Church of Jesus” indicates the historical value 
of the Acts and the Epistles, as well as of the Gospels. 
The belief of the Orthodox Jews about the character of 
the Messiah is seen to emanate from the erroneous offi¬ 
cial teaching in the Temple of the time of Jesus in re¬ 
gard to the royal, man-Messiah. That teaching itself 
is proven to have been out of accord with the coeval, 
popular notions about the Messiah, as well as incompa¬ 
tible with anterior Jewish traditions about Jehovah's 
Christ. The theories of Heterodox, Jewish sects of the 
Middle Ages, Karaites, Maimonists, Averroists, and 
Cabbalists, are brought in in exemplification of the fact 
that modern errors about the supernatural character of 
prophecy, and about the Eschatological Messiahship, 
are new in form only. The relation of the Messianic 
theories of the school of Wegscheider, to certain work¬ 
ing hypotheses of “Higher Criticism” is likewise de¬ 
picted. 

The second section aims to show the divine author¬ 
ity of those direct declarations of Divine Sonship, which 


Preface. 


9 


Jesus certainly, and clearly made, and which He demon¬ 
strated, by His manner of conducting Himself, to mean 
that He is the Second Person of the Trinity, in whom 
the Divine and the Human Natures are hypostatically 
united. The course of the reasoning of this section is 
obvious enough. Starting off with the admission of 
“Higher Criticism ,, that the authentic declarations of 
Jesus about His own identity are absolutely reliable, the 
fact is demonstrated that the real Jesus, the truly 
“Historical Jesus”, the genuine “Jesus of the Gospels”, 
is the divinely attested Jesus of the four, canonical Gos¬ 
pels, whose declarations must be taken as they stand, 
and explained in accordance with the infallible tradition 
of the centralized medium of Divine Revelation. 

Jesus proclaimed His Divine Sonship indepen¬ 
dently, as it were, of His Messiahship. But, in fact, 
the Messiah foretold by the prophets is the Incarnate 
Son of God. Hence, in proving Himself the Messiah, 
Jesus necessarily likewise proved Himself the “Logos,” 
who took upon Himself the form of a servant. The 
study of His already fulfilled prophecies, in connection 
with the variety, and the multiplicity of His miracles, 
evinces the absolute, divine sanction of all the declara¬ 
tions of Jesus regarding His identity. The reasoning 
of this second section is preceded by a critical review 
of the works of those, who, in modern times, have led 
attacks upon the Gospel account of the words, deeds, 
and life of Jesus. It is made evident that the Gospel 
record is not dependant on legends about Gautania, as 
well as that there is no similarity between the forma¬ 
tion of the history of Jesus and that of Gautama. There 
is no need of the Gospel record to prove historically 
that Jesus existed, despite the theory of Drews and 
others to the contrary. Jesus did not borrow His ideas 
of Kingship, and of Jehovahship from the unwritten 


10 


Preface. 


Talmud. It is logically impossible to use the Synoptic 
Gospels to deny the authenticity of St. John’s Gospel, 
or to use the “Synoptic Problem,” and the “Theory of 
the Two Sources” to curtail the first, three, canonical 
Gospels. Sound criticism, as well as ecclesiastical au¬ 
thority, upholds the four Gospels as found in the Vul¬ 
gate. Harnack and Loisy understand neither the true 
character of the “Church of Jesus,” nor the true rela¬ 
tions of Faith, Church, and Gospels. In passing, it is 
shown that it is the “faith” of Modernism, not the real, 
supernatural belief of Christianity, which obstructs the 
science of the relations of Church and Gospels. 

The first section of this work is cast in the form 
of the Prophecy—Argument. The second section is 
cast in the form of the Gospel—Argument. The syllo¬ 
gistic form of each section seems to be advantageous. It 
appears to enable one to easily comprehend the gist, 
and the force of the main argument of that section, as 
well as to see at a glance why and how the subordinated 
topics fit in in their respective places. Moreover, the 
headlines throughout the chapters of both sections 
should facilitate the finding of topics, in which one may 
be especially interested. In fine, the author hopes that 
this work will be useful for controversial purposes to 
his brother-priests on the mission. He also hopes that 
it will be helpful to many, who are seeking the light, 
but who have not yet discovered it. 

DANIEL F. HORGAN, 
Rector of St. Cecilia’s Church, 

Ashland, Mass. 


SECTION I. 


Jesus, the Christ, the Incarnate Son of 
God, of the Old Testament 
Prophecies. 


CHAPTER i. 

THE PREMISES OF THE PROPHECY-ARGUMENT, 
AND THE FIRST POINT OF THE MINOR. 

The Prophecy-Argument may be thus summarized. What 
God has testified to, is absolutely true. But God has testified, 
through the Messianic Predictions of the Old Testament, that 
Jesus is the Son of God, who became Messiah at His Incarna¬ 
tion, and who, as “the Servant” suffering vicariously, founded 
His universal, spiritual Kingdom, whose beginning is on earth, 
although its perfection is in heaven. Therefore, it is abso¬ 
lutely true that Jesus is the suffering, and redeeming God-Man 
Messiah. 

THE MAJOR PREMISE OF THE PROPHECY- 
ARGUMENT. 

The major premise of the Prophecy-Argument 
presupposes certain postulates. The postulates in ques¬ 
tion, are the existence of the Personal God, His Essen¬ 
tial Attributes, and the possibility of supernatural re¬ 
velations made by God through human agency. Of 
course, if required, these truths, which are here as¬ 
sumed to be granted by all scholars of good will, and 
impartiality, could be demonstrated by the sole light 
of reason 1 . But, in accordance with the scope of our 


JSee B. Boedder, “Natural Theology,” London etc. 1902, pages 30 et seq. 
Pohle-Preuss, “God, His Knowability” etc. St. Louis, 1911. pages 16 
et seq. .7. Perrone, “Praelectiones Theological,” 31st edition, 1865, 
Tom. I, vol. I, pages 8 et seq. 





12 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


work, we take it to be conceded that what God testifies 
to, is absolutely true. 

THE MINOR PREMISE OF THE PROPHECY- 
ARGUMENT. 

The minor premise of the Prophecy-Argument im¬ 
plies the existence, long before the Christian Era, of 
genuine prophecies, inclusive of the Messianic Predic¬ 
tions. It also implies that the latter centre around the 
divinity of the Messiah. If the existence of the Mes¬ 
sianic Predictions, as the authentic utterances of the 
prophets, were historically proven; and if their con¬ 
tents were found to be utterly beyond human foresight 
of future contingences, their subsequent verification in 
Jesus would necessarily show that they were originally 
made by God through human agency. Of course, we 
are here presupposing that some, at least, of those Mes¬ 
sianic Predictions were sufficiently intelligible, as well 
as evidently fulfilled in Jesus. Likewise, there must 
be no possible suspicion, either that the predictions 
were manufactured after the fact, or that their fulfill¬ 
ment was accomplished by falsifying history. We shall 
now proceed to develop, and to prove the first point of 
the minor premise, which is the fact of the existence, 
long before the Christian Era, of genuine prophecies, 
inclusive of the Messianic Predictions about a Personal 
Messiah. 

THE CHARACTER OF PROPHETS AND THE ANTI¬ 
QUITY OF THEIR EXTANT WRITINGS. 2 

The holder of the prophetic office in Israel was 

2See St. Thomas, “Surama” 1I-II, Quaest. 171-174; R. Comely, “Com- 
pend. Introduce in S. S.,” Parisiis, 1889, pages 363 et seq.; “A 
Maas, “Christ in Type and Prophecy,” New York, etc., 1893, vol. I, 
pages 82 et seq.; J. Huby et Al. “Christus, Manuel d’histoire des 
religions,” Paris, 1912, pages 635 et seq.; “The Catholic Encyclope¬ 
dia,” art. “Prophecy, Prophet,” etc. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 13 

called “Nabi.” This word, according to the usage of 
the Old Testament, meant the mouthpiece of God. It 
was accurately translated by the Greek word “pro- 
phetes,” which signified one, who speaks for another, 
or in the name of another. The two ordinary syno- 
nymes for “Nabi” were “Roeh”, and “Chozeh”, which 
both indicated a seeing, or, rather, a divinely illumin¬ 
ed person. Abraham (Gen. XX., 7) was the first to 
be named Nabi. The next was Moses. (Dent. XXXIV., 
10). Not all the prophets of the Old Covenant left 
writings. The prophetic writings in the Old Testament 
seem mostly to be epitomes of what had previously 
been preached orally. Some, however, were doubtless 
manuscriptions of what had not been delivered by word 
of mouth. Every authentic prophet had a divine voca¬ 
tion (II. Peter, I., 21), to which he was obliged to re¬ 
spond. The case of Jonah shows that it could not be 
neglected with impunity. Thus, to Amos (VII., 15) 
the Lord said, “Go, prophesy to my people Israel.” Isa- 
ias (VI., 9) heard the voice of the Lord sending him 
on his mission of prophesying. So, likewise, Jeremias 
(I., 1-10); and Ezechiel (I., 3). There were not 
“schools of prophets” properly so called. The “Ne- 
biim” of the time of Samuel, and the “Bene-nebiim” of 
the time of Elias, and of Eliseus doubtless assisted in 
the labors of their respective masters, but they were 
not composed of disciples, who graduated as true proph¬ 
ets. The direct intervention of God was needful to 
constitute such. 

The authentic prophets were divinely inspired to 
preach, in a way analogous to that of the divine inspira¬ 
tion of their written works. Each one of them received 
the revelation pertinent to his particular mission, 
(Summa, II.-II., q. 171, Art. 1 & 4), so that the divine 
light was not habitual in the individual, although the 


14 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

line of prophets was continuous. (Summa, II.-IL, q. 
171, Art. 2). Considered in general, they were the su¬ 
preme, divinely commissioned teachers of Israel. They 
were the divinely chosen medium of conserving, inter¬ 
preting, and enforcing the Old Covenant, and, simultan¬ 
eously, of preparing the way for the Messianic King¬ 
dom. In their own plane, they were superior to the 
priests, who carried out the Mosaic ritual, and to the 
Kings, who should have executed the divine commands 
to Israel. Moreover, in religious, national, and private 
affairs, they had the power to foretell the future, as 
God willed to reveal it through them. However, their 
principal predictions regarded the coming Messiah. It 
should be remarked here that the Prophecy-Argument 
presumes the restriction of the sense of the word 
prophecy to that of prediction. 

The Old Testament books, which are classed as 
prophetic, may be located in time, both in accordance 
with internal evidence, and in accordance with reliable 
Jewish tradition, especially as known to St. Jerome, 
and to other Fathers. 3 If the dates of their respective 
compositions are approximated, even within a latitude 
of a couple of centuries, and if they are now extant as 
originally composed, or, at least, as revised by Estras, 
there can be no reasonable doubt about their antiquity. 
Between B. C. 800 and B. C. 722, five of them were 
most probably written down. These are the works of 
Jonah, Amos, Joel, Abdias, and Osee. The works of 
Isaias, and of Micheas, who were contemporaries, were, 
however, probably not terminated, until after the Fall 
of Samaria. Between B. C. 722 and B. C. 606, the 
works of Nahum, Sophonias, and Habacuc were com- 

SSee Comely, op. cit., pages 373 et seq.; and “Synopses Omnium Lib. Sac. 
U. T.,” Parisiis, 1890, pages 199 et seq; and M. Seisenberger, “Prac¬ 
tical Handbook for the Study of the Bible,” New York, 1911, pages 
304 et seq. Fessler-Jungmann, “Institut. Patrol.,” New York, etc. 
1890-1892, tome II, Part 1, page 175. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 15 

pleted. Jeremias wrote himself. But the compilation 
of his different productions was probably made by 
Baruch, who added his own appendix, or book. Be¬ 
sides Baruch, Ezechiel and Daniel also wrote during 
the Babylonian Captivity. After the return in B. C. 
5B6, came forth the works of Aggeus, Zachary, and 
Malachy, the last of the prophets, supposed by some 
critics to be Esdras himself. Since Esdras, the priest, 
was the contemporary of Nehemiah, the cup-bearer to 
Artaxerxes I., (B. C. 465-425), the last of the prophetic 
books of the Old Testament must have been composed 
about four hundred years before the Christian Era. 
This much is historically certain. Those prophetic 
books, however, by no means, include all the Messianic 
Predictions, which, indeed, make their advent with the 
very first book of the Bible. 

REJECTION OF THE SUPERNATURAL IN PRO¬ 
PHECY BY HETERODOX JEWS OF THE 
MIDDLE AGES. 

We naturally expect to find the modern, rationalis¬ 
tic students of the Old Testament rejecting the super¬ 
natural in prophecy. Yet, before listening to them, 
it may be well to devote some attention to what cer¬ 
tain classes of Jews, heterodox, indeed, in the eyes of 
the synogogues, but famous nevertheless, had to say 
about divinely inspired prophecies, as well as about the 
Messiah Himself. In the East, at the beginning of 
the tenth century, the sect of the Karaites was brought 
into prominence by its noted writer, Joseph ha-Roeh, 
called in Arabic, Jakub Al-BacirJ This sect is said to 
have traced its origin to the stand taken by Anan ben 

.jSee Z. Gonzalez, “Hist, de la pbil.,” traduite de l’espagnol, Paris, 1890, 
tome 2, page 500; S. Munk, “Melanges de phil. juive et arabe,” Paris, 
1859, page 476. 



16 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


David, 5 at Bagdad, in 761, against the implicit submis¬ 
sion of individual reason to the rabbinical, traditional 
interpretations of the Thorah, or Mosaic Books. It took 
its name from Karah, the Hebrew word for text, be¬ 
cause its votaries claimed to be direct, and independent 
expositors of the text of the Old Testament. They did 
not, however, long coniine themselves to this field. 
They branched off into an atonic theory of the constitu¬ 
tion of the universe, borrowing their distinctive doc¬ 
trines from the Arabian Motecallemin. 6 Moreover, the 
bolder Karaites finally came to the conclusion that 
there was nothing supernatural about the Old Testa¬ 
ment, and, in consequence, they gave up the notion of 
a personal Messiah, past, or future, altogether. The 
Karaites were unsuccessfully opposed by Saadia, 7 the 
greatest of the Gaonim, or heads of rabbinical schools, 
who died, either at Sora, or at Bagdad, in 941, or in 
942. 

In Western Europe, from the opening of the thir¬ 
teenth century onward, there were two classes of Jew¬ 
ish writers, whose speculations about the divine light 
of prophecy, and about the Messiah, can hardly be 
treated independently of one another. One of these 
classes consisted of the Maimonists, or followers of 
Moses ben Maimon, the most celebrated, and the most 
influential of all the Jewish thinkers of the Middle 
Ages. The other class comprised the Jewish Aver- 
roists, or proselytes of the Spanish Moslem, Ibn Roschd 
(Averroes.) The verbal distinction between the latter 
class and the former is easily made. Moreover, it is 
comparatively easy to designate certain prominent pev- 

5Munk, page 471. 

6Moses ben Maimon. “Moreh Nebuchim,” 1, 71. See also Munk, pages 
473 & 477. J. Spiegler “Gesch. der Phil, des Judenthums,” Leipzig, 
1890, page 235. 

7J. Guttmann, “Die Religions Philosophic des Saadia,” Gottingen, 1882 : 
Spiegler, pages 238 et seq.; M. Steinschneider, “Die hebraeischen 
Ubersetz, des Mittel,” etc., Berlin, 1893, pages 438 et seq. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 17 

sonages, who were definitely either in one class 
or in the other. Thus, amongst the Maimonists, we 
may reckon Schemtob ben Joseph ben Falaquera 8 
(1224-1295: Jedaja Penini of Beziers 9 (1260- 
1321; also called Bedersi, or Bedarschi, author 
of the famous “Bechinoth Olam.” (“Examination 
of the World”); Abraham Chasdai Kreskas of Sara¬ 
gossa/ 9 author, in 1410, of the “Or Adonai” (“Light of 
God”); and the noted Spanish Jew of the end of the 
fifteenth century, Isaac Abravanel/ 1 Amongst 
the Averroists, we may reckon Levi ben Gerson, to 
whom we shall return shortly; and the last great ex¬ 
ponent of the school, Elias del Medigo/ 2 doctor of phil¬ 
osophy at Padua, and protege of Pico della Mirandola. 
But, on the other hand, there were notable admirers of 
both Ibn Maimon, and Ibn Roschd. Such, for instance, 
were Samuel ben Tibbon/ 3 the very man, who first 
translated into Hebrew the chief work of Moses ben 
Maimon; Serachia ben Scheelthiel Chen/* a famous me¬ 
dical man of Rome, in the second half of the thirteenth 
century; and the distinguished Moses ben Joshua of 
Narbonne/ 5 known to the Schoolmen of the fourteenth 
century as Magister Vidal. Such men, together with a 
multitude of lesser lights, attempted to fuse the doc¬ 
trines of the two masters, and not without reason. They 
were contemporaries. Ibn Roschd died at Morocco, in 
1198/ 6 while Moses ben Maimon died at Cairo, in 1204. 


8See Munk, pages 274 & 494-496; Spiegler, pages 290 & 291; Steinschnei- 
der, pages 5 et seq., & 380. 

9Munk page 496; Gonzalez, tome 2, page 518 ; Spiegler, page 289. 

108ee Spiegler, page 298. 

jfllbidem, page 303. 

12Munk, pages 509 & 510 : Spiegler, page 302. 

13E. Renan, “Averroeset I’Averroisme,” Paris, 1869, page 187. 

J-jSteinshneider, pages 764-766 ; and J. Dunbar’s partial translation from 
E. Carmoly’s “History of the Jewish Physicians,” Baltimore, 1844, 
pages 84-86. 

15Munk, pages 503-506; Spiegler, page 296 ; Gonzalez ; tome 2, pages 519 
& 520; Steinschneider, page 424. 

MSee Figuier, “Vies des savants illustres.” Paris, 1877-1879, tome 2, 
pages 62 et seq.; Renan, pages 7 et seq., & 107 et seq., on doctrine. 



18 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


It is true that they had different points of departure. 
Ibn Roschd based his whole system upon the two fund¬ 
amental principles of the Eternity of Matter, and of the 
Unity of the Active Intellect in all men; whereas Moses 
ben Maimon started off with the preconception of the 
possibility of reconciling Peripateticism, as he under¬ 
stood it, with the Thorah. Nevertheless, once under 
way, their respective systems had similar character¬ 
istic features, and, indeed, were almost verbally alike. 
Besides, at close of his life, Moses ben Maimon strongly 
eulogized the philosophy of Ibn Roschd. 

The attitude of the Maimonists proper towards 
prophecy, and towards the Messiah can hardly be 
judged of without a previous knowledge of the work¬ 
ings of the mind of Ibn Maimon himself over those 
problems. Such knowledge necessitates a glance at his 
characteristic doctrines. The latter are to be found in 
that most famous work, which he published, in Arabic, 
under the title of “Dalalat al hairin.” It was transla¬ 
ted from Arabic into Hebrew, about 1200, by Samuel 
ben Tibbon, who bestowed upon it its ordinary used 
name of “Moreh Nebuchim. ,, Although no trace of it 
can now be discovered, a Latin version of it was made 
by some Jewish translator of the thirteenth century. 
This is certain, because the schoolmen of that century 
cited, and criticised it freely. Amongst them may be 
named William of Auvergne, 17 Alexander of Hales, 18 Al- 
bertus Magnus, 19 Vincent de Beauvais, 29 Duns Scotus, 21 
and St. Thomas Aquinas. 22 Moreover, the opinions of 


I7See J. Guttmann, “Die Scholastik des dreizehnt. Jahrhunderts,” etc., 
Breslau, 1902, pages 19 et seq. 

18Guttmann, pages 44 et seq. 

ISGuttmann, pages 87 et seq. 

20Guttmann, page 131. 

2/Guttmann, pages 165-167. 

22 Dr. Guttmann, who is a rabbi, consecrated a special brochure to St. 
Thomas, “Das Verhaltniss des Thomas von Aquino zur Judenthum,” 
etc., Gottingen, 1891. See pages 33 et seq. His citations from St. 
Thomas and the other schoolmen appear to be accurate, although we 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 19 

these schoolmen upon the “Moreh,” as well as upon 
other mediaeval Jewish works, are not to be despised. 
Strange as it may appear, they had far better knowl¬ 
edge of the real spirit of that literature, especially the 
Talmudistic, than we have at the present day. The 
“Moreh” was translated, from the original Arabic, into 
French, by Salomon Munk, under the title, “Le guide 
des egares,” at Paris, 1856-1866. This work is now 
the standard authority on the text of the “Moreh,” 
the Arabic being retained together with the French 
version. 23 It is divided into three volumes, which cor¬ 
respond with the three parts of the “Moreh,” as made 
by Moses ben Maimon himself. 

As already noted the system of the latter is built 
upon the preconception that Peripateticism, is infal¬ 
libly true, in so far as Aristotle laid down absolute prin¬ 
ciples, as the scientific expression of that truth, of 
which the Old Testament is the allegorical expression. 2 * 
In order to support this remarkable theory, Moses ben 
Maimon had recourse to a process of supplying syno- 
nymes, in order to figuratively explain away texts of 
Holy Writ, otherwise contradicting Aristotle. Like¬ 
wise, he claimed that Aristotle merely speculated on 
the origin of the universe, deeming that the arguments 
for the eternity of the world seemed more probable in 
themselves, than those for creation. 25 Further, he said 
that Aristotle simply theorized on all, that concerned 
the sphere of the moon, and what was above it, and, 
consequently, meant to be taken as infallible only what 
he taught on Being and Becoming below the sphere of 


have not verified them. But his conclusions about their dependence 
upon antecedent Jewish speculations are usually exaggerated, and 
often erroneous. However, see A. Stockl, “Gesch. der Phil, des Mit- 
tel,” Mainz, 1864-1866, Bd. 2, page 559. 

23 It has been critically analyzed by A. Franck, “Philosophie et religion,” 
Paris, 1869. pages 83 et seq.; see also Spiegler, pages 278 et seq. 

IB^See Franck, pages 87 et seq., on “Moreh,” Part I, sections I-L. 

25“Moreh,” Part II, XV, pages 121 et seq. 



20 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


the moon. 26 With the foregoing, supposed convergence 
of the Holy Writ with Peripateticism in view, the “phil¬ 
osopher” concluded that God in Himself is the Tran¬ 
scendent, Unknowable Being, devoid of all attributes. 27 
Therefore, he argued that Being, existence, everything, 
in fact, is to be denied even “analogy of attribution” in 
God and in man. The community of language in such 
regards, merely covers “homonymes.” 28 

However, God without essential attributes even if 
Aristotle had so conceived Him, could not have been 
the Creator and Conserver of the universe revealed in 
the Thorah. Moses ben Maimon so discovered. So, 
eventually, by a scarcely dissimulated artifice of lan¬ 
guage, particularly, by the use of double negatives, he 
restored to God those very attributes, which, “philo¬ 
sophically,” speaking, he had previously denied to 
God. 29 Moreover, in the third part of the “Moreh,” 36 
he added much that seemed orthodox upon the wisdom, 
and the providence of God in ruling the universe, and 
in leading individual men to Himself through the vicis¬ 
situdes of earthly life. 

Nevertheless, despite the unwarranted limitations 
imposed on Peripateticism by Moses ben Maimon, it 
was usually Divine Revelation, which fared worse in his 
development of his twofold expression of truth. This 
was owing to the Neo-Platonism, with which he had 
been so completely imbued by his Moslem preceptors. 
Thus, although he said that the world, according to 
Genesis, must be deemed created by God, he, neverthe- 


26“Moreh,” II, XXII, cited by Franck, page 141. 

27“Moreh,” I, L, page 180, cited by Franck, page 96. Sections following 
in Part I of the “Moreh” up to LXIX, all deal with the Nature of 
God. 

28“Moreh,” I, XXV, page 131, cited by Franck, page 97. 

29“Moreh,” I, LII, LIII, LIV, LVIII. Latin version of Buxtorf, cited by 
Stockl, Bd. II, page 271. Franck, pages 102-107. 

S0“Moreh,” III, XI-XXV. 

We need not refer to his proofs of the existence of God, with their 
26 preliminary postulates. See Gonzalez, tome 2, pages 512-514; 
and Franck, pages 121 et seq. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 21 

less, explained creation as synonymous with emana¬ 
tion^ from the Godhead, or, in other words, as synony¬ 
mous, with essential overflow from Divine Being. He 
believed it sufficient concession to the Old Testament to 
represent this overflow as having taken place in time, 
and not from eternity. Excepting this concession to 
the Bible, his expansion of the emanation theory was 
practically the same as that of Ibn Sina (Avicenna), 32 
which was absolutely accepted by Obn Roschd. The 
first emanation from the Transcendent Deity was the 
First Intelligence, which, likewise was the First Cause, 
as well as the primal principle of the duality of spirit 
and of matter. The lowest of the descending chain of 
Intelligences was the Active Intellect, 33 the ruler of the 
sublunary world. The theory of the Union with the 
Active Intellect 3 * was unequivocally, and fully in bloom 
in the “Moreh.” The consequent loss of true person¬ 
ality, and of individual immortality, even of the spirit¬ 
ual soul of man, was plainly stated. 35 The identifica¬ 
tion after death of the spiritual part of man with the 
Active Intellect was conceded, 33 but for “hommes d’e- 
lite” alone. The rest of mankind was supposed to un¬ 
dergo utter annihilation. 37 

From the brief foregoing exposition of the doc¬ 
trines of Moses ben Maimon, one may now draw his 
own inference on the sincerity of what is found in the 
closing sections of the second part of the “Moreh” on 


31In Arabic, “Feidh.” In French, “epanchement.” 

“Moreh,” II, XII, page 102, cited by Franck, page 132. 

S2St. Thomas, “Summa,” I. Q. 76, art. 4 & Q. 84, art. 4 ; “Sum, contra 
Gent.,” II, cap. 45 ; Figuier, tome, 2 pages 55 et seq.; B. Haureau, 
“Hist, de la phil. scol.,” Paris, 1872-1880, vol. 2, pages 25-28; 
Prantl, “Gesch. der Logic,” etc., Leipzig, 1855-1870, Bd. II, pages 
320 et seq.; M. Berthelot, “La Chimie au moyen age,” Paris, 1893, 
tome I, pages 293 et seq.; C. De Vaux, Avicenne,” Paris, 1900, pages 
239 et seq. 

33“Moreh,” II, XI, page 96. 

S.4“Moreh,” III, LII, page 452. 

35“Moreh,” I, LXII, page 373. 

S6“Moreh,” I. LXX, pages 327 & 328. 

37 “Moreh,” II, XXVII, page 205; Franck, page 158; Gonzalez, tome 2, 

page 515. 



22 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

the possibility of the supernatural, and of direct, divine 
intervention in the miraculous, and in the prophetic. 
Apparently, the best that can be thought of it is that it 
presupposed a twofold truth of religion and of phil¬ 
osophy, rather than a twofold expression of one and 
the same truth. Add to this that it was written by a 
man, who, in 1165, at Cordova, 58 during a persecution 
of the Jews, had publicly professed Islam, the religion 
of Mahummed. Moreover, it is very evident that the 
orthodox Jews of the Middle Ages had no trust in what 
seemed to be traditionally correct in the “Moreh” on 
prophecies, and the like. For a whole century after the 
appearance of this work in the Hebrew version, but 
vainly, they instituted drastic measures against its 
propagators, besides publicly burning copies of it on 
several occasions. Finally, they were forced to com¬ 
promise. So, in 1305, at a great synod at Barcelona, 59 
they decreed, under penalty of exclusion from the 
synagogues, that no Jew, unversed in the Talmud, and 
under twenty-five years of age, would be permitted to 
read the “Moreh Nebuchim.” This decree was of little 
avail. Yet, it marked the beginning of a more peaceful, 
but not less determined opposition, which continued 
up into the seventeenth century. 

On the other hand, the Maimonists proper strove 
strenuously to be regarded as still faithful to their race 
and creed. They were even successful in maintaining 
their titles as commentators of the Talmud. In this 
they imitated Moses ben Maimon himself, who, as a 
young man, had reorganized the Talmudistic literature. 
From this fact may be gleaned an inkling of their view 
of the Messiah. It had been announced by their mas- 

SSSee Dunbar, pages 51 et seq. ; I-Iaurgau, vol. 2, pages 41 et seq.; Stein- 
schneider, page 414, and 763 et seq. ; Munk, page 486 of “Melanges ’’ 
etc.; Spiegler, pages 269 et seq. 

SSMunk, “Melanges,” etc., page 490, and Spiegler, pages 286-288. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 23 

ter, before he declared that Mahummed was the one 
prophet of one God devoid of threefold personality.* 0 
Ignoring Our Blessed Lord absolutely, they held that 
God would send “the Messiah, who will be the Redeemer 
of his people.”* 1 2 * * But they, of course, believed Him a 
mere Man-Messiah, a royal conqueror. Moreover, they 
denied that it could be learned from the prophets, when 
the advent of the Messiah would take place. They 
made a wide distinction between the authority of 
Moses and that of the other prophets. As time went 
on, they became less interested, even in trying to make 
the Pentateuch converge with their Neo-Platonic inter¬ 
pretation of Peripateticism. During the fourteenth 
century, they practically adopted the Averroistic prin¬ 
ciple of the twofold truth, religious and philosophical. 
Thenceforward, the ideas of the supernatural in 
prophecy, and, of divine intervention of a Personal God 
in a world distinct from His Nature, became blanks in 
their minds. This may be asserted without much fear 
of contradiction by the Jewish historians, who, other¬ 
wise, seem anxious enough to cover up the muddle of 
Jewish thought in the Middle Ages. 

It is a parodox of history that, while the Maimon- 
ists came to veil their pantheistic rationalism under the 
principle of the Averroistic twofold truth/* and while 
even the fusionists of the doctrines of Ibn Maimon and 
of Ibn Roschd appear to have exercised caution in their 
utterances about the supernatural, and the Old Testa¬ 
ment texts, the Jewish Averroists proper, at least, from 
the time of Levi ben Gerson, came out boldly, and 
without any palliation of their irreligious tendencies. 
Moreover, their name was legion/ 5 Levi ben Gerson** 


.JOSee Franck, page 96. 

jlPerrone, tome 2, vol. 6, pages 10 & 20. 

1 , 2 On this principle, as proposed by Ibn Roschd himself, see Gonzalez, vol. 

2, page 491. 

JSSee Renan, “Averroes,” etc., pages 186 et seq. 

ifSee Munk, “Melanges,” etc., pages 498-501 ; Renan, pages 193 & 194 ; 

Prault, Bd. II, pages 394 et seq., and Spiegler, pages 294-296. 



24 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

may stand as the exponent of what concerns us here. 
He commentated many books of the Old Testament, 
exhibiting the spirit, which culminated in its external 
expression, in his chief work, the “Milchamoth Adonai,” 
(“Wars of the Lord”). He spent years over this work, 
which he finished in 1329. In it he denied that the Old 
Testament was the Word of God; he rejected the pos¬ 
sibility of Divine Revelation; and he scouted the idea of 
miracles and prophecies coming from God. It goes 
without saying that he disbelieved in a Messiah past, 
or future. 

By the beginning of the fifteenth century/ 5 or¬ 
thodox Jewish Scholars had practically disappeared. 
The traditional teaching of the Talmud had been for¬ 
gotten. Then something, which we cannot resist men¬ 
tioning, happened.* 6 In order to recover a rational 
foundation for their own religious traditions, independ¬ 
ently, of course, of Christian dogmas, the rabbinical 
Jews of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth cen¬ 
turies had recourse to Latin-Hebrew versions of the 
works of St. Thomas Aquinas, and of other Scholas¬ 
tics of the 13th century. For the state of affairs, how¬ 
ever, which led up to this remarkable occurrence, not 
only Maimonists and Averroists, but also, and largely, 
the Cabbalists were responsible. 

From the opening of the thirteenth century on¬ 
ward, the Cabbalists had increased rapidly, both in 
number, and in influence, particularly in Spain. During 
that century, they had had famous schools at Gerona, 
Segovia, and Saragossa. At the latter place, Abraham 
ben Samuel Abulafia* 7 (1240-1292) had pretended to be 
the Messiah. Later, they had established schools in 

J5See Spiegler. page 301. 

46Steinschncider, pages 461 et seq., and pages 483 et sea. 

■47See C. Ginsburg, “The Kabbalah : its Doctrines, Development and Lit¬ 
erature,” London, 1865, pages 112 et seq. 




Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 25 

many other places. Their aggressiveness had grown 
in proportion with their power. During the fifteenth 
century,^ 8 they boldly denounced all Jews, who would 
not believe in the Cabbala. They reiterated all the 
claims of their predecessors on the antiquity, and on 
the character of the Cabbala. Thus, they asserted 
that, in its original form, it had been revealed by God 
to Adam. They asserted that Abraham had written 
down what had been communicated by God to Adam, 
but that his work had afterwards been lost for ages. 
They asserted that Moses had the primitive oral form 
of the Cabbala, besides the communications directly 
imparted to him, on Mt. Sinai, by God Himself. It was 
Moses, they said, who gave the Cabbala its character of 
“secret wisdom.” For, while he retained the custom of 
transmitting it verbally, he, likewise, indicated it, in 
the first four books of the Thorah, by signs, intelligible 
to the initiated only. They added that the ultimate, 
esoteric teachings of the Cabbala were manifested by 
the prophet, Elias, to Simon ben Jochai, a reputed won¬ 
der-worker mentioned in the Palestinian Talmud, who 
flourished about A. D. 10CM 9 Some of the Cabbalists 
in question also thought that there was a covert allu¬ 
sion to their system in the Talmud itself. 59 

The literature of the Cabbala consisted mainly of 
three works. The first of these was the “Sepher Jet- 
zirah” (“Book Creation”). Until the fourteenth cen¬ 
tury, all its commentators agreed with Saadia in as¬ 
cribing it to Abraham. Then, the Cabbalist, Isaac de 
Lattes, 51 contended that it had been written during the 
first century of the Christian Era. He was not, how- 


i8Ginsburg, pages 132 et seq. 

J,9See Spiegler, pages 88 & 89, 93 & 94, 122 & 123, 131 & 132, and 185; 

Ginsburg, pages 3, 84-86 and passim. 

50Ginsbui’g, pages 99 & 100. Franck, “La Cabbale,” etc., Paris 1843, 
pages 51 et seq. 

SlSpiegler, pages 130 & 131. 



26 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

ever, taken seriously by the other Cabbalists of his 
time. In 1552, in the translation of it made by the 
Christian, William Postello, it still retained its title of 
“Abrahami Patriarchae Liber Jetzirah.” Neverthe¬ 
less, modern Jewish Scholars have proven conclusively 
that it was not composed, until shortly before the time 
of Saadia. 52 The second of the Cabbalistic works, and, 
likewise, the first Cabbalistic work produced in Western 
Europe, had for its author Azariel ben Manachem of 
the school of Gerona. He called it a “Commentary on 
the Ten Sephiroth, 53 by way of Questions and Answers.” 
It appeared shortly after the year 1200. The third of 
the Cabbalistic works was the “Sepher Sohar” (“Book 
Brightness”). 5 ^ This book was the landmark, and the 
turning-point in the history of the Cabbala. Nor has it 
ever since ceased to be attractive to a certain cast of 
Jewish mentality. Julius Spiegler, whose historical 
work has been cited several times, is an instance in 
point. Moreover, it is the only work of the Cabbalists, 
which has bearing on the subject matter of this treat¬ 
ise. This is so, because of its peculiar doctrine about 
the Messiah. However, a mere excerpt of this doctrine, 
apart from its concrete setting in the Sohar, could 
hardly afford an inkling of the esoteric meaning behind 
its apparently simple verbal framework. 

52See Ginsburg, pages 76 & 77, and Steinschneider, pages 394 & 395, and 
443 & 444. For the teachings of the Jetzirah, see Spiegler, pages 
143 et seq.; Ginsburg, pages 65 et seq.; Franck, pages 149 et seq. 
5SGinsburg, pages 95 et seq. 

5*See K. von Rosenroth, “Cabbala Denudata,” Amsterdam, 1805, contain¬ 
ing the three parts of the Sohar, covering its philosophy proper, and 
translated into English by S. Mathers, as “The Cabbala Unveiled,” 
London, 1887. Of this English translation, one part of the Sohar 
“The Lesser Assembly” is in “Hebrew Literature,” London and New 
York, 1901, pages 301 et seq. 




Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 27 

PANTHEISM OF THE “SEPHER SOHAR” ON THE 
CELESTIAL MAN, OR SON OF GOD, AND 
ON THE ESCHATOLOGICAL MESSIAH. 

The “Sepher Sohar” was written in Aramaic, and 
made its first appearance in the thirteenth century. 
Schemtob de Leon, who issued it, asserted that it was 
a true copy of an original autograph by Simon ben Jo- 
chai, the reputed wonder-worker, previously alluded to, 
as having flourished about A. D. 100. From 1300 on« 
ward, it was generally believed by the Cabbalists that 
the latter had really written it. The famous Von 
Rosenroth thought similarly. Franck, 55 who conceded 
that the Sohar did not appear until the thirteenth cen¬ 
tury, held, nevertheless, that it had descended in part 
from Simon ben Jochai, and his school. Spiegler, 56 
while admitting that it must have been recast, and en¬ 
larged in the thirteenth century, holds that Simon ben 
Jochai was the author of its primitive form. Munk, 57 
however, showed, from the internal evidence of the 
work itself, that the Sohar, in its present shape, was 
put together in the thirteenth century. To a consider¬ 
able extent, it plagiarized from the 'Tons Vitae” of 
Ibn Gabirol (Avicebrol 58 ). It likewise drew from more 
ancient sources not yet precisely determined; and, 
moreover, it evinced familiarity with the Christian 
dogmas of the Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, and 
Divine Sonship of Jesus. 59 In fine, Ginsburg 6 ' 9 has proved 
beyond all reasonable doubt that Schemtob de Leon was 
the sole author of the compilation known as the Sohar. 


55 “La Cabbale,” pages 122 et seq. 

56“Gesch. der Phil.,” etc., pages 135 & 136. 

57“Melanges,” etc., pages 275 et seq. 

58“Melanges,” etc., Hebrew and French versions; Steinschneider, page 
281 & 981 et seq.; Latin version by Baumker, “Beitrage zur Gesch. 
der Phil, des MittelMunster, 1895, Bd. I. 

59Ginsburg, “The Kabbalah,” pages 56 et seq. 

60“The Kabbalah,” pages 85-89, 90-93, 145-149. 



28 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

It is evidently a compilation very loosely put together. 6J 
There are eleven divisions, of which the eighth, ninth, 
and last are the only ones of importance. Further, the 
last, “The Lesser Assembly/' is hardly more than a re¬ 
capitulation of the ninth division, “The Greater Assem¬ 
bly/' This itself purports to be no more than dis¬ 
courses upon the secrets contained in the “Book of Mys¬ 
teries," the eighth division. The work as a whole does 
not attempt to propound any regularly interconnected 
system of Cabbalistic lore. By manipulations of the 
Hebrew consonants, 62 vowel points, and accents; by 
the arrangements of consonants in squares to be read 
in different directions; by anagrammatic permutations 
of the consonants; by taking the first and the last let¬ 
ters of a word to form other words; by taking every 
letter of a word as the initial, or abbreviation of an¬ 
other word; by joining words together to make new 
ones out of the combination; and by yet more recon¬ 
dite alphabetical processes; it endeavors to show eso¬ 
teric meanings, in the first four books of the Penta¬ 
teuch. 

According to the Sohar, God is the Inconceivable 
Most Ancient, and Holy One. Inasmuchas He tran¬ 
scends all Knowledge of finite reason, He is Pure Non- 
Being. From another point of view, and inasmuchas 
He is the eternal reality in itself, He is Absolute Being. 
Further, in expansion, He is the One in all, just as, at 
the end of time, He is All in one. 63 As Non-Being, He 
created all things out of nothing, not because some¬ 
thing can be produced from nothing in the ordinary 
sense of the word, but because, being Himself Non- 
Being, He expanded, and manifested Himself in Posi- 


filFor^its^ analysis, see Ginsburg, pages 78 et seq.; and Spieglor, pages 
62See Ginburg, pages 45 et seq. 

6SRosenroth, Sohar, I, 246, & III, 288. Spiegler page 154. 




Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 29 

tive Being, by a descent from the ideal, or abstract, 
down to the world of sense-perception. 6 * As Non-Being, 
or the “En Soph” (“without end”), or, in other words, 
as the abstraction of thought named infinite space, He, 
“by concentration,” formed the void to be filled with 
worlds, of which the first was the Macrocosm, 65 or “Ce¬ 
lestial Man,” or “Son of God,” who, consequently, must 
be both infinite, in so far as the essential manifestation 
of the Transcendent Godhead, and finite, because of 
the limitation in Him of the infinite by concretion. 
From the other aspect of His Nature, God, as Abso¬ 
lute Being, is also, as it were, the boundless sea, which, 
without loss of plenitude, divided into the Ten Sephi- 
roth. These are, figuratively speaking, the organic 
members of the Man, 66 or Son, or impersonal macro¬ 
cosm. They are, likewise, the medium of the cognos¬ 
cibility of God as Creator, as well as the medium of 
creative activity operating through the “Word,” or 
“Wisdom,” or “Will,” or “Son,” who, especially under 
the foregoing titles, derived from ancient, and conflict¬ 
ing philosophical systems, 67 is very often personified in 
the Sohar. Thus, God first took on Absolute Intelli¬ 
gence, symbolized as the form of the nature of the Son, 
while the latter's first organic member, or First Se- 
phirah, was the first manifestation of the Godhead, and 
expanded itself into the world, constituted by itself, to¬ 
gether with the other nine Sephiroth, and representing 
the ideal body of the Son. 68 The second, and the third 
of the Sephiroth symbolized active, and passive reason, 
while the last seven of them symbolized the attributes 
acquired by the overflow of a Godhead unqualified in 


64Sohar, I, 1 & 2. Franck, pages 212-214. 

65Munk, pages 285 & 492. Ginsburg, page 6. 

66Sohar, III, 141. Ginsburg, pages 12-16. 

67Sohar, II, 42 and 43. Franck, pages 353 et seq. and Ginsburg, page 105. 
68Sohar, I, 15, II, 42, 43, 100, III, 148 etc. Ginsburg pages 7 et seq. 



30 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

Himself. 69 The unity and totality of the Ten Sephiroth, 
or “world of immediate emanation,” was called the 
“atzilatic world.” From this world, but particularly 
from the union of the Sixth Sephirah, or “Beauty,” 
as the “King, with Tenth Sephirah, or “Kingdom,” as 
the “Queen,” proceeded the “beriatic world,” or celes¬ 
tial world of the Ten Intelligences of the Neo-Platon- 
ists. Through the mediation of this second world, 
which was almost, but not quite infinite on its superior 
side, the King and the Queen also produced the “Jet- 
ziratic world” of ten legions of angels. From this third 
world radiated the “assiatic world,” inclusive of Hell, 
and of the sublimary universe. Nevertheless, beneath 
the apparent diversity of the fourfold 76 world, persisted 
the oneness of reality. 

In the Sohar, there is no apparent relation be¬ 
tween the Son, who is both divine and finite, even when 
treated as personified, and the Messiah, (who is 
to be Man-Messiah), but not a mere man. 
As a man, like the rest of mankind, He is to be 
the Microcosm, 71 both in body, and in soul. Likewise, 
His Soul, in its highest part, or immortal spirit, has 
emanated from the “atzilatic world,” ages before its 
ultimate union with His body. 72 But the immortal 
spirit of the Messiah, predestined, as it is, to goodness, 
and to glory, has not to be subjected to metempsy¬ 
chosis, like the souls of evil men. 73 As already in¬ 
timated, the Messiah will not be a mere man. For His 
advent, at the end of time, will be the signal for the 
cessation of transmigrations of souls, for the extinction 


69Sohar, I, 23, II, 245, III, 209. Spiegler, pages 160-164 and Munk. 
page 493. 

700n the four worlds, compare Franck, pages 197 et seq.; Munk, pages 
284 and 493; Spiegler, page 171 ; and Ginsburg, pages 23 et seq. 
71Franck, pages 229 et seq.; Spiegler, pages 174 et seq.; and Ginsburg, 
pages 29 et seq. 

72Sohar, I, 96, III, 61, and Ginsburg, page 34. 

73Sohar, II, 99, and Ginsburg, page 42. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 31 

of Hell, and for the final absorption of all things, in¬ 
cluding Himself, back into the Godhead. 7 * 

OBJECTIONS OF MODERN RATIONALISTS 
AGAINST THE SUPERNATURAL IN PRO¬ 
PHECIES, ESPECIALLY MESSIANIC. 

The so-called scientific dismissal of the supernat¬ 
ural in prophecy may be said to date from the appear¬ 
ance of the “Institutiones Theologiae Christianae Dog- 
maticae” 75 of Julius Wegscheider, an admirer of Kant. 
For, this work outlined practically the whole of the 
general objections against the possibility, and the di¬ 
vine origin of prophecies, in vogue amidst the ration¬ 
alists of the present day. 76 The main objection urged 
by Wegscheider against the possibility of prophecy was 
that the latter would presuppose the loss of human lib¬ 
erty, inasmuchas what would be foretold by God would 
necessarily have to happen. The fallacy of this objec¬ 
tion was in the confusing of divine prevision of future 
human acts with predetermination of physical laws. 77 
Wegscheider and his school have striven in various 
ways to associate the power of predicting, exhibited in 
the Old Testament, with the natural faculties of the 
human individual in his ordinary, or normal condition. 
One method used by them has been the attributing of 
the power of prophecy to the result of the working of 
intense feelings in men of sound minds, and representa¬ 
tive of their environment, but also deeply moved by 
love of God, and of Israel. Another method has been 
the assimilating the power of prophecy with the faculty 


7.{Sohar, I, 45, 168, II, 97, and Ginsburg, pages 44 and 45. 

75Sixth edition, Halle, 1828. See Perrone, tome 1, vol. 1, page 8. 
76Perhaps the repetition of Wegscheider, which has done most harm in 
England, and in America, is the English translation, “The Prophets 
and Prophecy in Israel,” London, 1877, of the work of the Leyden 
professor, A. Kuenen. 

77Perrone, tome 1, vol. 1, page 57, on Wegscheider, Pars I, Cap. II, 50. 



32 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

of sagaciously foreseeing future events, possessed by 
sages, and by statesmen. Such theories, however, would 
reduce the power of prophecy, or of prediction of 
facts beyond human ken to that of mere conjecturing 
of what may, or may not turn out to be true. But 
prophecy, 78 if it exists in accordance with our definition 
of it, particularly in regard to a Personal Messiah, must 
be absolutely fulfilled. The verification of such fulfill¬ 
ment is the supreme test, if the authenticity, and anti¬ 
quity of prophecy be granted. Moreover, in the hypo¬ 
thesis of this subsequent verification, prophecy de¬ 
mands a supernatural explanation. But, says the school 
of Wegscheider, we deny that, what are called Mes¬ 
sianic Prophecies, are sufficiently clear, and explicit, to 
warrant a decisive conclusion that they have ever been 
fulfilled. In rebuttal, it may be responded that, unless 
all those predictions are too obscure 79 to be applied to 
any particular individual, the verification of the fulfill¬ 
ment of, at least, some of the Messianic Prophecies is 
not impossible. 

The above line of objections being exhausted, one 
portion of the school in question takes a different atti¬ 
tude regarding the perspicuity of the Messianic Predic¬ 
tions. These men declare that some of the latter are 
clear, and explicit enough, but precisely because, after 
the Captivity at Babylon, they were interpolated into 
the older prophetic books. Thus were crystallized the 
dreams of the returned Jews about a revival of former, 
regal splendor, and about a future expansion into a 
universal theocracy. Or, if it cannot be maintained 
that such passages were interpolated into the prophetic 
books, because of the great care, and vigilance exer- 

78St. Thomas, Summa, II-II, q. 172, art. 1. 

79Summa, II-II. q. 171, art. 4 ; Comely, “Comp.,” etc., page 370 ; Maas, 
vol. I, pages 147 et seq. ; Perrone loc. cit. page 60 on Wegscheider 
loc. cit. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 33 

cised by the ancient Jews over the integrity of the 
Canon, it can, at least, be shown that its final editors 
amended the Messianic Prophecies, in order to bring 
out better the meaning, in their judgment, underlying 
them. 80 We may answer that gratuitous assertions 
may be gratuitously denied. It does not follow that, 
what may seem likely, ever took place in fact. Nor 
does it follow that apparent lack of smoothness in the 
context indicates alterations, or clarifications, in cer¬ 
tain Messianic Predictions. However, we shall not 
touch any of the latter, which may appear to offer any 
real difficulty from internal evidence. 

Wegscheider was versatile. He made sudden, and 
unexpected changes of front. He was not bothered 
much about consistency. If one method of attacking 
the supernatural in prophecy was not satisfactory, he 
could find others. In these regards, his disciples have 
imitated him. Thus, if the power of prophecy could 
not be made to lie within the scope of normal, human 
activity, (there yet remained abnormal activity.) 
Perhaps it were wiser to associate the power 
of prophecy with ecstasy, trance, dream, vision, hyp¬ 
notism, second-sight, spiritism, or something of the 
sort. There are a number of places in the Old Testa¬ 
ment, which seem to imply such a thing. But, on the 
other hand, a complete exegesis of the Old Testament 
is not necessary for the adequate defence of the Proph¬ 
ecy-Argument. Moreover, according to our under¬ 
standing of prophecy, 8 * it has no intrinsic connection 
with ecstacy, dreams, visions, either directly to the 
mind, or through the senses, hypnotism, etc. Fur¬ 
ther, we are concerned with the fact, not the mode of 


80They adduce instances in support of their contention. See Perrone, tome 
1, vol. 1, pages 59, 61 and 62. 

SlSumma, II-II, q. 173, art. 3 ; q. 174, art. 2 and 3; “Christus,” page 639 ; 
Maas, vol. 1, pages 91-96. 



34 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

prophecy. Finally, we choose Messianic Predictions 
evidently made in the wakeful, and conscious state of 
prophets. 

Another way of attacking the direct, divine agency 
in prophecy is to attempt its assimilation with the 
oracles of ancient, pagan religions. 82 It is compared 
with Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Greek, and 
Roman declarations, and predictions. It is asserted to 
be similar to them in its ambiguity, artifices, and ex¬ 
ternal apparatus calculated to awe the credulous. The 
ambiguity attributed to prophecy, as likened to pagan 
oracle, is not merely that of the unintentional obscur¬ 
ity presupposed in a previous objection, but that of 
deliberate equivocation for the purpose of delivering 
an answer capable of opposing interpretations. In il¬ 
lustration of the presumed artifices, and impositions 
upon the simple-minded beholders, the following refer¬ 
ences are given. In I Kings, X., 5-13, there is the case 
of the “company of prophets coming down from the 
high place, with a psaltery, and a timbrel, and a pipe, 
and a harp before them,” and prophesying with Saul. 
In I Kings, XIX., 23 and 24, where there is another 
instance of the prophesying of Saul, the latter 
“stripped himself also of his garments, and prophesied 
with the rest before Samuel, and lay naked all that 
day and night.” In III Kings, XVIII., 21-39, there 
is the whole course of the conduct of Elias, in his ap¬ 
peal to the test of fire, in order to confute the priests 
of Baal. In IV Kings, III., 15, there is the action of 
Eliseus, who called for a minstrel, and “the hand of 
the Lord came upon him.” 

However, in the first place, we may observe that 
it is one thing to state that certain declarations, or 
predictions, are ambiguous, and another, and a very 


82See Perrone, loc. cit., pages 63 et seq. 





Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 35 

different affair to impute a low motive as the reason of 
the alleged ambiguity. No impartial reader of the Old 
Testament could honestly affirm that the statements, 
accredited to the prophets, were prompted by any de¬ 
sire to please, or to curry favor with the princes, or the 
people. Those statements may not always be easily 
understood. But, it is plain that they were made as 
messages from the Lord. There was no human respect 
behind their composition. On the contrary, the proph¬ 
ets denounced fiercely; and they predicted boldly, and 
defiantly. Instead of receiving reverence, influence, 
and revenue, as the comparison with the utterers of the 
pagan oracles would imply, the prophets were subjected 
to abuse, privation, torture, and martyrdom. Hence it 
was that St. Stephen said—“Which of the prophets 
have not your fathers persecuted? And they have 
slain them, who foretold the coming of the Just One.” 
Acts, VII., 52. 

In the second place, the references to the Books 
of Kings are not to the point for two reasons. The first 
reason is that there is no evidence that the prophets, 
especially those, whose statements are preserved in the 
Old Testament, ever did anything to impress, to say 
nothing of deceiving, their audience. We know that 
the true, as distinguished from the false prophets, were 
forbidden spells, charms, divinations, auguries, consult¬ 
ing the dead, and the like. 85 Indeed, they used no arti¬ 
fices. Strong language was their forte. The second 
reason is that, in the references in question, there is 
no sign of prophecy in the sense of prediction; at least, 
Messianic. 

In fine, it sometimes seems good to the rational¬ 
istic school to deny that a Personal Messiah is promised 


83Numbers XXIII, 23; Deuteronomy XVIII, 9-15. 



36 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

in the old Testament, particularly, in the Pentateuch, 8 * 
and, thus, to obviate many difficulties in the way of 
their explanations of the prophetic itself. Therefore, 
they claim that after Josue, every period of oppression 
brought forth its deliverer, or Messiah. Even the 
pagan, Cyrus (Isaias XLV., 1-6) is called Messiah, in- 
asmuchas he terminated the Babylonian Captivity. 
Consequently, the term Messiah is generic, and includes 
many under its extension, not merely one. It is true, 
that, in a wide sense, and analogically, Cyrus and 
others acquired the title of Messiah. But the point 
is that the Messiah by excellence is neither thereby 
excluded, nor deprived of the evidence of His persona] 
identity. 85 What we undertake to prove in this first 
point of the minor premise of the Prophecy-Argument 
about the personality, and the character of this Mes¬ 
siah by excellence will be based upon selected Messianic 
Predictions. In view of the contortions of Jewish, and 
of Gentile opponents, we maintain the right to choose 
our defences, particularly since even one prophecy in 
our sense, if such could be found in the Old Testament, 
would suffice as God’s testimony in the matter. How¬ 
ever, if we can thus establish our present contention, 
we do not waive the right to subsequently interpret 
other less explicit Messianic Predictions in the light 
reflected on them from the investigation of those more 
intelligible ones about to be considered. What prophe¬ 
cies we select, here, however, shall be unquestionable 
in antiquity, and in authenticity. Their textual con¬ 
struction, and coherence will sufficiently evince—the 
normalness of the mental condition of their respective 
authors. Their meaning will be clear enough to satisfy 
any unprejudiced scholar. They will bear primarily, 


S^Perrone, tome 2, vol. 5, pages 4-6, 16-19. 
S5Maas, vol. 1, pages 154 et seq. 




Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 37 

but not exclusively, upon the human side of the Mes- 
siahship. On them we depend to show that the Mes¬ 
siah is a person, an individual, and always so desig¬ 
nated, not merely under the name of Messiah, which, 
in fact, He receives but twice, 86 but also under other, 
and, frequently, more striking names. Indeed, the use 
of the name of Messiah, instead of that of Christ, its 
Greek equivalent, by non-catholic students of the Bible, 
is generally open to suspicion. For, it is read into 
prophecies, which do not actually contain it, according 
to preconceived, and, often, erroneous notions of the 
personality really therein depicted. We likewise de¬ 
pend on our selected prophecies to show that the 
Person, whom we also may call Messiah, but in the 
proper sense of the word, was born into this world as 
such. Consequently, His title is not eschatological. We 
by no means doubt that He entered into His glory by 
His death, and resurrection, or that His kingdom is 
perfected in heaven. But its beginning is on earth, 
since it is founded by His vicarious suffering, as de¬ 
scribed by Isaias. Yet it is not the temporal kingdom 
expected by the officials of the Temple of the time of 
Our Blessed Lord. This is evident from Psalm CIX. 
Certainly, as “the Servant,” and at His Public Advent 
foretold by Daniel, He was already in fact the Messiah. 
But from the “Emmanuel” prophecy, and, especially, 
from the citation from Micheas, it is plain that He was 
Messiah from His birth, and, even, from His Incarna¬ 
tion. 

INFERENCES ON THE PERSONALITY AND 
CHARACTER OF THE MESSIAH FROM CER¬ 
TAIN SELECTED MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS. 

We shall commence with the citation from Mich- 


SGDavid IX. 26. and Psalm II, 2. 



38 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

eas, who was contemporary with Isaias; and who fore¬ 
told the downfall of both of the Jewish Kingdoms, as 
well as the birthplace of the Messiah. This citation is 
taken from the second verse of the fifth chapter. 
While some rationalists have raised doubts about the 
last two chapters of the work of Micheas, the fifth 
and preceding chapters have been allowed by all con¬ 
servative critics to pass as genuine, and authentic. 
Hence, there is no sufficient reason to go farther into 
the consideration of the historical worth, and author¬ 
ship of the passage from Micheas here utilized. “And 
thou, Bethlehem” (house of bread) “Ephrata” (an ad¬ 
ditional appellation, found also in Genesis, XXV., 14, 
and XLVIII., 7, distinguishing this town from Bethle¬ 
hem of the tribe of Zabulon) “art a little one among 
the thousands of Juda”: (because unable alone to fur¬ 
nish a thousand for a prince to lead in war): “out of 
thee shall he come forth unto me” (despite thy appar¬ 
ent insignificance, shall he come forth, or, in other 
words, in thee shall he be born, in order to fulfill the 
dispensation of Divine Providence) “that is to be the 
Ruler in Israel”: (i. e., the Messiah, who is evidently a 
person, as the three following verses demonstrate): 
“and his going forth is from the beginning, from the 
days of eternity.” 

It is certain that all the Jews, from the time this 
prophecy was made, up to the time of Our Blessed Lord, 
understood that this “Ruler” was the individual, whom 
we call the Messiah. Thus, when Herod, disturbed by 
the appearance of the wise men from the East, inquired 
of the chief priests, and scribes, “where Christ should 
be born,” they responded—“In Bethlehem of Juda. For 
so it is written by the prophet: And thou Bethlehem 
the land of Juda art not the least among the princes 
of Juda: for out of thee shall come forth the Captain 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 39 

that shall rule my people Israel.” (Matthew, II., 5 and 
6). It is true that the priests and the scribes did not 
cite the passage from Micheas literally. Nor did they 
cite it fully, and honestly. They paraphrased the first 
portion of it, not only in order to indicate, according to 
their idiom, the dignity of Bethlehem of Juda, as the 
birthplace of the “Ruler,” but also in order to represent 
the latter as if he were to be a temporal king. Never¬ 
theless, they plainly identified Him with “Christ,” 
about whom Herod inquired. It is obvious why they 
were silent about the last part of the passage from 
Micheas. “His going forth is from the beginning, from 
the days of eternity” is evidently contrasted with His 
coming forth in time at Bethlehem. Therefore, this 
individual must have existed previously to that birth 
in time. According to the original Hebrew, “from the 
beginning, from the days of eternity,” could mean 
“from the beginning, from a remote period.” But even 
so, the phrase signifies an existence of some kind long 
anterior to the birth at Bethlehem. Consequently, even 
those who will not admit that the prophecy of Micheas 
implies a Divine Person, retaining His eternal nature, 
while becoming man, should, at least, concede that a 
Person, previously existing, became Messiah at His In¬ 
carnation. If they find difficulty in explaining how this 
may be, otherwise than in the catholic sense, it is for 
them to extricate themselves from this pitfall. 87 

In the second place we shall put the study of the 
“Emmanuel” prophecy, which is found in Isaias, 88 
VII., 14. There is no objection worth considering 
against the authenticity of that part of the work of 
Isaias which contains this prophecy. Its occasion was 
the following. In the reign of Achaz, King of Juda, 


87See J. Corluy, “Spicilegium Dogmatico Biblicum,” Belgium, 1884, vol. 
1, pages 442 et seq. 

88 See Corluy, vol. 1, pages 394 et seq., and Maas, vol. 1, pages 333 et seq. 



40 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

Jerusalem was besieged by the Kings of Israel, and of 
Syria. In this extremity, Achaz besought help from 
Teglathphalasar, King of Assyria. The latter raised 
the siege of Jerusalem; and, moreover, he devastated 
Israel, and Syria. He, afterwards, did likewise to Juda. 
Meanwhile, Isaias, by the command of God, announced 
the safety of Jerusalem to Achaz. When the latter re¬ 
fused to ask a sign, in confirmation of this announce¬ 
ment, Isaias, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, 
gave to the house of David the sign, which is the ob¬ 
ject of the prophecy under observation here. From the 
context, it would appear as if this sign were soon to be 
accomplished. Not only what precedes the citation 
used by us, but also the two following verses, would 
seem to so indicate. For, they seem to imply that Em¬ 
manuel would grow up upon the stringent fare of the 
devastated Juda, and under the stress of the wars of 
the period. Indeed, no wholly, satisfactory explanation 
of the relation of these two verses to our citation has 
ever been advanced. Moreover, the contemporaries of 
Isaias doubtless looked for the speedy fulfillment of the 
Emmanuel prophecy. It is probable that none of them 
realized that the mother of Emmanuel would be a vir¬ 
gin absolutely, and perpetually. Some of those, coeval 
with Isaias, thought her to be the mother of Ezechias, 
deeming the latter to have been the Emmanuel foretold 
by the prophet. Hence, these men could not have 
understood the name of Emmanuel to refer to the Mes¬ 
siah, much less, to a divine person. 

Nevertheless, we may positively affirm that the 
Jews of the time of Our Lord had come to the una- 
imous admission that the Emmanuel of Isaias meant 
the Messiah. For St. Matthew, (I., 18-23), in his ap¬ 
plication of the Emmanuel prophecy, relied on such 
admission, as a matter of course. This is sufficient, 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 41 

since, at present, we are presuming the historicity of 
the Gospels, without, however, insisting on the fact 
that they are likewise the Word of God. It 
would be of no avail to address here those, 
who reject what they call the “Gospel of the Infancy.” 
In this connection, it may be well to again recall that 
the whole course of the Prophecy—Argument, leaning 
as it does, on mediate, not immediate evidence, must, on 
its positive side, be met by hearers of fair mind, and 
good will. Moreover, in refuting fallacies against that 
argument, we must expect the sane use of the light of 
reason in our readers. Further, it cannot be urged 
against us that we have arbitrarily cut down our cita¬ 
tion of the Emmanuel prophecy. In regard to this, as 
well as in regard to the other selected Messianic Pre¬ 
dictions, we have in view what is to be found in the 
New Testament directly bearing upon their fulfillment. 
Consequently, we feel justified in limiting them accord¬ 
ingly. Another observation may not be out of place 
here. It is not necessary to revert, in each instance, to 
that fact that the extant form of the particular proph¬ 
ecy under consideration indicates that its author, at 
least, at the moment of its manuscription, was neither 
in a trance, nor in a frenzy. We now appear to be in a 
position to delineate the meaning of Isaias, VII., 14. 

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. 
Behold a virgin” (literally in the Hebrew, the virgin, 
or better, the virgin by excellence. The Hebrew article 
“ha,” translated in the Douay version by “a,” is definit¬ 
ive. It is probably best rendered by a phrase, like “as 
such,” or “by excellence,” particularly, since it seems 
to presuppose Genesis III., 15. The word “virgin” of 
the Douay version is “virgo” in the Vulgate, and 
“parthenos,” in the Septuagint “Almah,” the original 
Hebrew word did not necessarily signify a virgin in our 


42 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

sense. It is said to be found in six other texts of the 
Old Testament. In two of these, its meaning is not so 
clear. Verse 26th of Psalm LXVIII., and verse 19th 
of Proverbs, XXX., in themselves, are capable of being 
interpreted otherwise, than Gen., XXIV., 43, Exod., 
II., 8, Cant. Cant., I., 3, and VI., 8. In these four texts, 
“almah" certainly means a maiden physically intact. 
Hence, at least, ordinary usage in the Old Testament 
upholds the Greek, Latin, and English renditions of 
the sense of the Hebrew word in Isaias, VII., 14. But, 
besides, the passage, previously indicated in St. Mat¬ 
thew, shows that, at the time of the writing of the lat¬ 
ter's Gospel, the word, “almah," like the word, “Emma¬ 
nuel," must have acquired, even if it had not always 
possessed, the sense here attributed to it. We do not 
contend, however, that even the Jews of St. Matthew’s 
time understood “almah" to mean a virgin absolutely, 
and perpetually.) “shall conceive" (lit. in Hebrew, 
“pregnant," a participial form. Hence, so far, we may 
paraphrase thus. Behold the virgin, as such, and with¬ 
out intercourse with man, pregnant in a miraculous 
manner) “and bear a son" (lit. in Hebrew, according 
to another participial form, “and giving birth to a son") 
“and his name shall be called" (lit. in Hebrew, accord¬ 
ing to a feminine verb form, “and she shall call his 
name") “Emmanuel" (i. e., “God with us.") Since the 
individual, foretold in Isaias, VII., 14, receives the 
name of “Emmanuel" at His birth, He must be Mes¬ 
siah at His entrance into the world. Moreover, if the 
name “Emmanuel," really signifies the identity of the 
individual, to whom it is given, He must, likewise, be 
“God with us" in fact. Indeed, howsoever understood 
by his contemporaries, Isaias himself, as is plain from 
other passages in his work, meant the name, “Emma¬ 
nuel," to be taken literally. Thus, for instance, in 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 43 

Chapter IX., 6, we read that “a child is born to us.... 

.; and his name shall be called. God 

the Mighty.” According to the idiom of his native 
tongue, Isaias says, in this verse, that the child in 
question is “God the Mighty.” So, likewise, in Chapter 
VII., 14, he says that the same child is really “God 
with us.” 

We shall next consider the Priest-King Prophecy, 
Psalm CIX., v. 1 and 4. This psalm is evidently Mes¬ 
sianic, 89 as the ancient Jews, the Jews 90 of Our Blessed 
Lord's time, the Fathers of the early church, and all 
Christians of the present day unite in affirming. It is 
certain that David is its author. In the first verse, God 
confers the Messianic Kingdom. “The Lord” (i. e., 
Jehovah) “said to my” (i. e., David's) “Lord,” (Ha- 
Adon): “sit thou at my right hand” (the place of 
honor): “until I make thy enemies thy footstool” (a 
figurative expression, recalling the Oriental custom of 
setting the foot upon the neck of a conquered mon¬ 
arch). In this first verse, by a poetical, and, likewise, 
by a prophetical license, David uses the past 
tense for the future. “Ha-Adon” is certainly 
a name for the Person, who is to be Mes¬ 
siah. But it is also a divine name. It implies divinity 
of some kind in its bearer, who, besides, is to have the 
extraordinary privilege of sitting at the right hand of 
God, while the latter fights his battles for him. The 
second verse emphasizes this first one. David, address¬ 
ing the Messiah, says that Jehovah will send forth the 
sceptre of the former out of Sion, the starting-point of 
the Kingdom. He then follows this up, by exhorting 


89See Bellarmine, “In Psalmos Explanatio,” Naples, 1860, pages 483 et 
seq.; Corluy, vol. II, pages 184 et seq.; Maas. vol. II, pages 48 et 
seq.; S. Thomas, Summa, III, q. 22, art. 1-6; Franzelin, “De Verbo 
Incarnato,” Trad, 1803, pages 517 et seq.; Pohle-Preuss, “Soteri- 
ology,” St. Louis, 1914, pages 127 et seq., and pages 149 et seq. 

.90See Matthew XXII, 41-44 ; Mark XII, 35-37 ; and Luke XX, 41-44. 





44 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

the Messiah to extend that Kingdom, despite all opposi¬ 
tion. The third verse regards the warlike expedition, 
during which the Messianic King overpowers all resist¬ 
ance. The Douay version, rendering the Vulgate, reads 
thus, “With thee is the principality in the day of thy 
strength: in the brightness of the saints: from the 
womb before the day-star I begot thee.” But St. Jerome 
rendered it in this manner. “Thy people will be spon¬ 
taneous in the day of thy power; on the holy mountains 
as if from the womb will arise to thee the dew of thy 
youth.” Moreover, the Masoretic Hebrew reads—“Thy 
people (will give) spontaneous gifts in the day of thy 
power: in the splendors of sanctity from the womb of 
the dawn to thee the dew of thy youth.” According to 
the Vulgate, the last portion of this third verse is an 
explicit statement that Ha-Adon, or the Messiah, who 
is to appear in the world as man, has been, in reality, 
and from eternity, the Son of God. Indeed, all the 
Fathers, with the exception of St. Jerome, used this 
statement as a proof of the divine, natural filiation of 
Jesus. It has since generally been treated in the same 
manner by Catholic authorities, as, for instance, by 
Bellarmine. However, at present, Corluy and others 
are inclined to give up the traditional interpretation of 
the phrase—“from the womb before the day-star I 
begot thee.” Hence, we do not insist on it. It is to be 
observed, however, that the first three verses of Psalm 
CIX. lead up to the prophecy that the victorious Mes¬ 
sianic King is a priest forever. 

According to verse fourth, “The Lord had sworn, 
(i. e., hath confirmed a solemn promise, as it were, 
with an oath, or, more precisely, with a formal declara¬ 
tion), “and he will not repent” (a metaphorical expres¬ 
sion, signifying the irrevocableness of the divine de¬ 
cree. It will not be, as when, “it repented him that he 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 45 

had made man on the earth,” Gen. VII., 6, or, as when, 
“the Lord repented that he had made him (Saul) King 
over Israel,” I. Kings, XV., 35.) “Thou art a priest for¬ 
ever” (such is the object of the irrevocable, and immut¬ 
able divine decree. The priesthood of Aaron is to be 
obliterated. God will replace it by the eternal priest¬ 
hood, which He will directly, and immediately confer 
upon the Messianic King. So He Himself tells Ha-Adon 
here.) “according to the order of Melchisedech.” (i. e., 
according to what is typified in the ceremony, and in 
the personailty of Melchisedech. By implication, the 
order of Melchisedech is opposed to the order of 
Aaron, 91 which was indissolubly connected with the Ta¬ 
bernacle and the Temple, and which, in consequence, 
was necessarily eradicated when the Temple was des¬ 
troyed. Aaron offered the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law 
(Levit. IX.), whereas Melchisedech offered bread and 
wine, thus prefiguring the sacrifice foretold by Malachy 
(I., 11.) Aaron was priest only, and for the Jews alone, 
whereas Melchisedech was both priest, and King; $nd, 
in his personality, he illustrated the priesthood for the 
nations everywhere. Moreover, that personality looms 
up, as it were, without beginning, and without end, and 
without limiting circumstance.) Since the order of 
the Messianic Priest—King is typified by that of Mel¬ 
chisedech, it follows by analogy that the Messiah is to 
exercise His ministry during His lifetime on earth. It 
is not to be reserved for a hereafter only. Just as 
Melchisedech offered bread and wine, while yet alive, so 
also, while yet alive, the Messiah will offer His sacri¬ 
fice. 

Moreover, we have seen that the Kingdom, which 
David wishes the Messiah to strive for, presupposes 
conflict with enemies on this earth. Yet, as has been 


9lGen. XIV, 18; and Corluy, vol. II, pages 415 et seq. 



46 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


just shown, it is a spiritual kingdom, not merely the 
realm of a monarch, like David himself. For, its head 
is a priest forever. Moreover, the fact that he is a 
priest determines the otherwise vague meaning of the 
last three verses of the psalm. They are addressed by 
David 92 to Jehovah, in jubilation at the prevision of the 
complete triumph of the Priest-King. The Kings, who 
resist the extension of the Messianic Kingdom, will be 
broken, or crushed. These kings mentioned in the fifth 
verse, are evidently the opposing monarchs of this 
world. But something more terrible than defeat in this 
world is in preparation for the enemies of the Messiah. 
“He shall judge among nations.” However, beforehand, 
“He shall drink of the torrent” 93 of sorrows, and afflic- 
tions, “in the way,” or during the course of His life as 
man on earth; and, “therefore he shall lift up the 
head,” by sitting at the right hand of God, whence He 
shall come, on the Last Day, publicly as the Judge. 
Then, He shall give the final, unchangeable, and eter¬ 
nal form to the kingdom, founded by His earthly sacri¬ 
fice ; and, besides, “He shall fill ruins” (lit. in Hebrew,” 
he shall fill the field of battle with the bodies of the 
slain”); and “He shall crush the heads in the land of 
the many,” or, in other words, he shall crush the ene¬ 
mies, who occupy the greater part of the world. Since 
these last two expressions refer to the final punishment 
of the wicked by the Priest-King, in His capacity as 
arbiter on the Day of Doom, they are metaphorical. 94 
Nevertheless, they indicate the eternity of that punish¬ 
ment in a world to come. 


In fine, we have no hesitation in concluding that 


92Corluy, and many others, agree with the Greek Fathers in makine 
min Vefe th6 MeSSiah iQ V6rSe 5 ‘ Either ^terpretaUon would 
MSee also Psalm XVII, 5; and Psalm CXXIII 5 

4 here ofvMse/eina 10 ?. reCelTC thc "^““’'“•Interpretation afforded 





Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 47 

we have rightly named the Messianic Prediction in 
Psalm CIX. the Priest-King Prophecy. For, according 
to it, God will confer kingship upon a Person, possess¬ 
ing a divine name, and sharing in divine power, and 
privileges. Ha-Adon will found His kingdom on this 
earth, at Sion, or Jerusalem. Afterwards, sitting at 
the right hand of God, He will protect it, with the 
divine help received from Jehovah, against all those, 
who, until the end of time, vainly endeavor to over¬ 
throw it. But His priesthood is essential to His king- 
ship. Indeed, the solemn declaration by Jehovah of the 
fact of that priesthood is the central point of the whole 
psalm. Consequently, the whole character of the mis¬ 
sion of Ha-Adon is to be viewed accordingly. There¬ 
fore, all the combats, in which He engages, even during 
His lifetime on this earth, are to be carried on by 
means of spiritual, and not carnal weapons. But, it is 
as judge on the Last Day, that He will gain the ulti¬ 
mate victory, and, besides, give His kingdom its final, 
and unchangeable form. Since the whole psalm hinges 
on verse 4th, as fundamentally representative of the 
character of the Person named in the first verse, the 
one question behind the complete application of the 
whole psalm is this. Who is Ha-Adon, who is a priest 
forever ? 

In the next place, we may take notice that the tor¬ 
rent of sorrows, and afflictions of “Ha-Adon,” the Mes¬ 
siah, alluded to in Psalm CIX., 7, is to be vicarious. 
We learn this from Isaias, LIII., 1-7. This passage 
falls within the second part of the work of Isaias, 
wherein the Person, who is Messiah, is particularly 
designated as the “Servant” 95 of God. This second part 


95See y. g. XLII, .1; LIII, II, etc. There is no real difficulty from texts, 
like XLI, 8 & 9, because in the context, XLI, 1 & 10, the Personal 
“Servant” is called “The Just One.” See M. Lepin, “Christ and the 
Gospel,” Eng. trans., Philadelphia, 1910, pages 87-89. 



48 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

of the work of Isaias, Chapters XL-LXVI., is surely 
as genuine as the first part. Nevertheless, we should 
state that its authenticity has been frequently, and 
fiercely impugned by rationalistic critics. For its au¬ 
thor, they have invented a Pseudo-Isaias. There is 
some plausibility in the textual objections raised by 
them against its authorship by the prophet himself. Its 
style, and language are somewhat different from those 
of the first part of his work, consisting of Chapters I.- 
XXXV. There is a kind of break, or historical inter¬ 
lude, chapters XXXVI-XXXIX., between the two main 
parts of his work. Yet, even from the point of view of 
internal evidence alone, these rationalistic difficulties 
are not insuperable. They certainly are not conclusive 
proof against the authenticity of the second part of 
the book. Isaias prophesied, at Jerusalem, under four 
kings, of whom the last was Ezechias. His teachings, 
and predictions extended over a period of about fifty 
years. The twofold scope of his written work was in¬ 
dicated in chapter I., 27. Besides, the second part of 
his work was not jotted down, until many years had 
elapsed from the time of the manuscription of the 
first part. In this way, it is easy to understand the 
historical interlude between the two chief portions of 
his work. Moreover, this interlude itself opens with 
the invasion of Sennacherib, in the fourteenth year of 
the reign of Ezechias. This fact shows that the sec¬ 
ond part of Isaias was not written, until after that 
year. Now, let it be observed that it would be strange 
indeed, if the style, and language of any man would not 
change somewhat, in such a length of time as must 
have intervened between the periods of the respective 
compositions of the different portions of the work of 
Isaias. Therefore, at most, the objections against the 
second part could merely raise a doubt about its authen- 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 49 

ticity. But this doubt, based on apparent, textual dif¬ 
ficulties, is entirely dissipated by the external evidence 
of the unanimous tradition of the ancient Jews, to the 
fact that the whole book, as now extant, was the work 
of Isaias himself. This tradition is on record in the 
Canon of Esdras. The orthodox Jews have always 
abided by its testimony. 96 All the early Fathers, who, 
used the passage from Isaias, which we are about to 
consider, treated it as Messianic. 

Verse 1. “Who hath believed our report ?” (Who 
will believe what is announced by us, the prophets? 
“Hath believed” is prophetic for “will believe.” “Our 
report” is “auditui nostro” in the Vulgate. It would be 
plainer as “res auditui proposito.”) “And to whom is 
the arm of the Lord revealed?” (And to whom is re¬ 
vealed the power of the Lord, i. e., as manifested in 
the Messiah. “The arm of the Lord,” “brachium Do¬ 
mini,” is a Hebrew idiom, expressive of the power of 
the Lord. See v. g. Isaias, LI., 5 and 9; and LII., 10.) 

Verse 2. “And he shall grow up as a tender plant 
before him,” (And the Messiah will appear in the world 
as a tender twig, lit. in Hebrew, as a nursing infant, 
before God),” and as a root out of a thirsty ground:” 
(and as offspring from the root of Jesse (Isaias, XI., 1), 
and, more particularly, from the family of David, when 
reduced to poverty, and obscurity, and, hence, as it 
were, a thirsty ground.): “there is no beauty in him; 
nor comeliness: and we have seen him,” (there is no 
beauty in him, nor comeliness, so that we should look 
at him. This rendering accords with the Hebrew con- 


96 See Comely, pages 373 et seq.; Seisenberger, pages 315 et seq.; “The 
Cath. Encyc.,” art. “IsaiasResp. Com. de Re Bibl., June 29, 1908 ; 
in Denzinger-Bannwart, “Enshirihon,” 1911, page 583. See same 
work, page 581, on authority of Bibl. Com. for Catholics. Its auth¬ 
ority on internal evidence of second part of Isaias could be opposed 
to that of rationalists. It is true that its members are bound by 
their faith. Yet, they are also scholars, and, hence, their findings in 
themselves deserve attention, as emanating from a body of experts. 



50 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

sonants, and the parallelism with the following clause. 
The Douay version literally translates the Vulgate, 
which renders the phrase in agreement with the Maso- 
retic pointing.) “and there was no sightliness, that we 
should be desirous of him.” (These last two, parallel 
clauses of verse 2nd can hardly express the revelation 
of God to Isaias, and to the other prophets, about 
the personal appearance of the Messiah. They prob¬ 
ably regard His lack of pomp of high birth, and of 
splendor of the state of an earthly potentate. Accord¬ 
ing to many, the clauses in question are put into the 
mouth of those Jews, who are to reject the Messiah.) 

Verse 3. “Despised, and the most abject of men” 
(despised, and most vilely treated. Vulgate, “novissi- 
mum virorum”; Hebrew, “ceasing to be of men,” i. e., 
vilest of the vile, as far as treatment is concerned. As 
He Himself says, “I am a worm, and no man; the re¬ 
proach of men, and the outcast of the people,” Psalm, 
XXL, 7.), “a man of sorrows,” (a man oppressed by 
sorrows), “and acquainted with infirmity”: (and ac¬ 
quainted with maltreatment. The Hebrew could mean 
either the infirmity from wounds, or that from disease. 
But, evidently, the suffering of the Messiah, is from the 
ill-treatment, which He receives): “and his look was, 
as it were, hidden” (and, as it were, the hiding of 
faces from Him, i. e., by His brethren, acting towards 
Him, as if He were a leper, as He is called, in a figura¬ 
tive sense, in the next verse. The Vulgate reads—“et 
quasi absconditus vultus ejus:” one version of the 
Hebrew favors this reading. For it reads—“and as it 
were hiding his face from us.” But the other Hebrew 
reading, which has been introduced here, seems more 
enlightening, and more preferable, considering what 
follows.) “and despised, whereupon we esteemed him 
not.” (Of course, the past tense is put here for the 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 51 

future. Doubtless, His enemies are made to speak 
here.) 

Verse 4. “Surely he hath borne our infirmities, 
and carried our sorrows:” (Surely He will bear the ill- 
treatment, and be burdened by the sorrows, which have 
already been mentioned in verse 3rd, but which are 
here affirmed to pertain properly to those, designated 
by the word “our.” Its application is made in verse 
6th) “and we have thought him as it were a leper, and 
as one struck by God, and afflicted.” (and, we, seeing 
Him laden with our sorrows, and infirmities, will have 
been inclined, before looking more deeply into the mat¬ 
ter, to consider Him as a leper, in a moral sense, and, 
consequently, as one punished by God, and afflicted, 
as if He Himself were a sinner.) 

Verse 5. “But he was wounded for our iniquities,” 
(But, in fact, His sufferings, or the sorrows, and infir¬ 
mities, or the punishments for iniquities, by which He 
will be wounded, should, in justice, be inflicted upon us, 
despite His taking of those punishments upon Himself. 
The word, “wounded,” in the Vulgate, “vulneratus,” 
means literally in the Hebrew, “pierced,” or “dug into.” 
See Psalm XXI., 17. “They have dug my hands, and 
feet.” Also, Zachary, XII., 10. “And they shall look 
upon one, whom they have pierced.”), “and he was 
bruised for our sins:” (and he will be bruised, Vulgate, 
“attritus,” i. e., affectus summis cruciatibus, for our 
sins. This clause is parallel with the preceding. It re¬ 
peats, and insists upon the vicarious character of the 
sufferings of the “Servant.” “The chastisement of our 
peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed.” 
(The chastisement, which will bring about our peace, or 
state of reconciliation, and friendship with God, ef¬ 
fected by the supernatural gift of sanctification, 
through the merits of the sufferings of the Messiah, 


52 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

will be upon Him; and by his bruises, we will be healed, 
or delivered from the guilt, as well as from the punish¬ 
ments justly due to our sins. These two parallel clauses 
regard the salutary effect of the vicarious expiation for 
our sins by the Messiah.) 

Verse 6. “All we like sheep have gone astray, 
every one hath turned aside into his own way:” (Con¬ 
sequently, the fall of mankind, and, hence, the Redemp¬ 
tion, is universal. Such is the application of the per¬ 
sonal pronoun of the first person plural from verse 4th 
onward. We do not affirm that its universal extension 
is evident from these verses by themselves. But it is 
evident from their comparison with the many other 
prophetic passages, such as that of Isaias, XL, which 
show the universal extension of the Messianic King¬ 
dom) “and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of 
us all.” (i. e., as to atonement, not as to guilt.) 

Verse 7. “He was offered because it was his own 
will,” (He will offer Himself, “not unwilling,” accord¬ 
ing to the Hebrew; “positively so willing,” according to 
the Vulgate.) “and he opened not his mouth:” (i. e., 
in murmuring, or complaining): “he shall be led as a 
sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb 
before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth.” 
(These last clauses require no explanation. 97 , 

The torrent of Vicarious Sufferings of the Priest- 
King is to be terminated by His violent death. So we 
are told by Daniel, IX., 24-27, who, moreover, indicates 
the date of His Public Advent as Messiah, and, conse¬ 
quently, but indirectly, also the date of His demise. 
Excepting the Pentateuch, no work of the Old Testa¬ 
ment has been so decried by rationalists, as that of 
Daniel. Many of them have even declared that it is a 


970n the foregoing prophecy of Isaias, see Corluy, vol. II, pages 82 et 
seq.; and Maas, vol. II, pages 231 et seq. 




Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 53 

forgery, perpetrated in the time of the Machabees. The 
orthodox Jews have never admitted the genuineness 
of the so-called deuterocanonical portions of the book, 
which are extant in Greek only. 98 The ninth chapter, 
however, being part of the surviving, original Hebrew 
is recognized as genuine by Jews, and by Christians. 
Yet, both classes have differed amongst themselves 
about its Messianic application. The Septuagint ver¬ 
sion of Daniel, which was replaced in the early church 
by that of Theodotion, did not give a Messianic inter¬ 
pretation to the “Christos” of verse 26th. The Fathers 
usually omitted the passage, to be considered here, 
from their lists of Messianic Predictions. Those, who, 
like St. Augustine, and St. Jerome, did believe it to 
foretell the advent, and the death of the Messiah, 
were, nevertheless, chary about chronological calcula¬ 
tions. However, with the historical data now at our 
command, and in consonance with the rules of sound 
hermeneutics, we may proceed to give what may be 
termed the classical interpretation of Daniel, IX., 24- 
27, on a basis of a Hebrew text, acknowledged by or¬ 
thodox Jews, and by conservative Protestants, as well 
as by Catholics, to be authentic, integral, and vera¬ 
cious. We cannot fairly be accused of special pleading 
for the interests of the Catholic Church, if our proce¬ 
dure be truly scientific. 

In the sixtieth year of his captivity, Daniel was 
considering the prediction of Jeremiah on the length of 
time to elapse before the liberation of the Jews, and 
was yet setting his face to the Lord in prayer, when 
the angel Gabriel instructed him as follows: “Seventy 
weeks” (or 490 years, since the Hebrew seventy “sev¬ 
ens,” which are called weeks by Jewish usage, are con- 


9SOn the genuineness of the work of Daniel, as found in the Vulgate, see 
Comely, pages 416 et seq.; and Seisenberger, pages 331 et seq. 



54 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

trasted with the seventy single years of Jeremiah) 
“are cut off” (from the future, at the circumscriptive 
time-limit) “upon thy people, and thy holy city” (Jeru¬ 
salem) “before transgression is finished, and sins are 
remitted, and iniquity is overwhelmed, and the Justice 
of the ages is brought in, and are sealed up” (or con¬ 
cluded) “vision and prophet, and is anointed the Holy 
of Holies.” So far, as we may interrupt to remark, 
the prophecy surely concerns the Messianic Kingdom 
in this world. For, after the fact, we know that sev¬ 
enty times seven years ended more than 1900 years 
ago. Hence, that circumscriptive time-limit did not 
portend an interval of time, which is not to end until 
the Day of Judgment. Moreover, the Messianic reign 
is evidently spiritual. Hence, we have here a confirma¬ 
tion of the character of the realm of the Priest-King 
of Psalm CIX. Moreover, the insistance on the remis¬ 
sion of sins recalls the Redemption of Isaias, LIII. Fur¬ 
ther, at the end of this 24th verse, we have the phrase, 
which reads in the Douay version—“and the saint of 
saints may be anointed.” In the Vulgate, it reads—“et 
migatur sanctus sanctorium.” The incorrect render¬ 
ing of the Septuagint was — “ Kal evcfjpdvcu ayicy ayt £i)v” 
Literally in the Hebrew, the “holy of holies” is in 
the neuter gender. Yet, by metonomy, this expression 
may be significative of a person, as in the case of Aa¬ 
ron, I. Para., XXIII., IB. There is a similar instance in 
the Greek of St. Luke, I., 35. Consequently, the Vul¬ 
gate, and the Douay versions of the “Holy of holies,” 
as designative of the Personal Messiah, are justified, 
but not conclusively, by this 24th verse by itself. 

The prophecy continues—“But you will know, and 
will understand: from the going forth of a word to 
restore and build up Jerusalem” (or, in other words, 
from the date of the issuing of a decree by Artaxerxes 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 55 

to rebuild Jerusalem) “up to the Messiah, the Prince, 
seven weeks” (or 49 years) “and 62 weeks” (or 4B4 
years, all together making a total of 483 years): “the 
street and the wall will be restored, and, indeed, in the 
straitness of the times.” At first glance, the decree of 
Artaxerxes, foretold in this 25th verse, seems to be 
the one issued, at the request of his Jewish cup-bearer, 
Nehemiah, in the 20th year of his reign. For, Nehe- 
miah, as we read in II. Esdras, I., 3, learns from some 
of his fellow-countrymen, that “the wall of Jerusalem 
is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with 
fire.” This news affects him visibly; and, in conse¬ 
quence, he obtains the decree in question, telling his 
master, with regard to Jerusalem, “I will build it.” 
(II. Esdras, II., 5.) Moreover, upon his arrival there, 
with the necessary, written, royal authority, the Jewish 
inhabitants set about building the gates, and the wall 
of the city. (II. Esdras, III.); and, despite all obstacles 
they kept on, until the work was finished (II. Esdras, 
VI., 15; and VII., 1.) However, “the houses were not 
built” (II. Esdras, VII., 4); nor were there men enough 
to repair the streets, until some years afterwards. For 
the obstacles thrown in the way of the undertaking of 
Nehemiah, and of his assistants, the Samaritans, and 
other enemies in Palestine were mainly responsible; so 
that, if we understand the 25th verse to refer to the 
decree of the 20th year of the reign of Artaxerxes, 
the opposition of these enemies constituted what is 
described as “the straitness of the times” (II. Esdras, 
IV., 7-23: VI., 1-14). In any solution of the date of 
the inception of the rebuilding of the streets, and of 
the wall of Jerusalem, it must certainly be admitted 
that, in accordance with Daniels’ prophecy, “the strait¬ 
ness of the times,” or peculiar, and enormous difficul¬ 
ties to be contended with, protracted the complete re- 


56 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

storation of the city for 49 years. For, the first divi¬ 
sion of 7 sevens evidently pertains to what is said in 
the 25th verse, while the following division of 62 
sevens regards what is added in the 26th verse. 

On the other hand, there are strong, and appar¬ 
ently conclusive reasons for believing that the decree 
of Artaxerxes, alluded to in verse 25th, is not that of 
the 20th year of his reign. To begin with, some years 
before the issuing of that decree, the Jews, who had 
previously returned to Jerusalem, had been at work 
on a wall of some kind. (I. Esdras, IX., 9.) More¬ 
over, from this 25th verse, and especially from the 27th 
verse, it is clear that, whereas Jeremiah predicted the 
70th year, as the precise date of the termination of the 
Babylonian Captivity, Daniel did not predict the end 
of the 70 sevens of years, as the exact time of the 
formal inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom. In the 
25th verse, 69 sevens of years are interposed between 
the Public Advent of “Messias Prince,” and a decree, 
which all, excepting certain Rationalists, admit to be 
one of those made by Artaxerxes. Further, if we study 
the analogy between the Scriptural accounts of the 
actual rebuilding of the Temple, and of the actual re¬ 
storation of the city of Jerusalem, we shall see that 
the decree in question must have been that of the sev¬ 
enth year of that monarch. (I. Esdras, VII., 7-26). In 
I. Esdras, I., 1-11, as well as in II. Para., XXXVI., 22 
and 23, we are told that Cyrus, in the first year of his 
reign, or in B. C. 536, was stirred up by the Lord to 
fulfill the prophecy of Jeremiah. Hence, he decreed 
that the Jews could return to Jerusalem, and should 
rebuild the Temple, of which, at the same time, he 
restored the treasures, which had been carried away 
to Babylon by Nabuchodonosor. Yet, in Isaias, XLV., 
13, we read of Cyrus,—“he shall build my city,” as 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 57 

if he had been destined to fully restore Jerusalem. On 
the other hand, the prophet Aggeus, who himself went 
up to Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of Cyrus, 
tells us (Ag. I., 4) that, in the second year of the reign 
of Darius, Son of Hystaspes, the Temple had not yet 
been rebuilt, although dwelling-houses had been 
erected. In fact, the Samaritans (I. Esdras, IV.) had 
succeeded in interrupting the work of repairing the 
Temple. Darius had to issue a decree confirmatory of 
that issued by Cyrus; and the Temple was not com¬ 
pleted, until the sixth year of his reign. (I. Esdras, 
VI., 12-15). The state of affairs with regard to re¬ 
building the wall, and the streets of Jerusalem is de¬ 
scribed somewhat similarly. In the seventh year of his 
reign, Artaxerxes issued a decree, whose content can¬ 
not be rightly restricted in meaning to that of some 
permission to merely refurnish the Temple, which, in 
fact, had been previously finished, and refurnished with 
its ancient belongings. The decree is obscure, it is 
true. Yet, it is no more obscure than, for instance, 
Isaias, XLV., 13. As in the case of the restoration of 
the Temple, so here, again, in regard to the restoration 
of the city of Jerusalem, the Samaritans, and other, 
enemies interrupted the work, and so effectually, that, 
for 13 years, it amounted practically to nothing. Hence, 
the need of the second decree, obtained by Nehemiah in 
the 20th year of the reign of Artaxerxes. Moreover, 
the date of the decree of the seventh year of the reign 
of the latter was B. C. 457. This is generally admitted 
by historians, who have no bias in the matter. The 
difference between 69 sevens or 483, and 457 is 26. 

In the 25th verse, the reckoning is from the re¬ 
building of Jerusalem up to “Messias Prince.” The 
Hebrew is “Maschiach Nagid,” or, according to the 
ordinary spelling, ‘'Messias Nagid.” There was no 


58 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

such reference in the Septuagint. The phrase was 
translated by Theodotion thus “«®s xp 10 ™ yyovfwov” 
“up to a Christ, a Prince,” although, if “Mes- 
sias” had not been a proper noun, it should have 
had its position reversed in the Hebrew. Yet, if 
“Messias” were a proper noun, “Nagid” should have 
had the article, which, however, was omitted in the 
Hebrew. But, again, in the Old Testament, particu¬ 
larly in the Psalms, by a poetical license, such an article 
is very frequently omitted. Moreover, in this verse, 
the material rebuilding of Jerusalem is contrasted 
with the New Sion, of justice, and remission of sin, 
to come, but the “Holy of Holies” to be anointed, and 
the “Anointed One,” or “Messias,” seem to be identi¬ 
fied in verses 24th and 25th. They are identified, in 
the Vulgate, and in the Douay, as the Personal Mes¬ 
siah. Besides, if Personal Messiah, likewise He is 
“Prince,” or leader in war, when He does appear. 
Therefore, according to ancient Jewish law, and cus¬ 
tom, He is 80 years of age. But “Messias Prince” is 
to appear, as we have seen, in A. D. 26. Therefore, 
this is the date of His Public Advent. 

In the 26th verse, the prophecy relates that, after 
the period of 62 sevens following the period of 7 sevens, 
the Messiah “shall be cut off by a violent death,” in 
consequence of which, His murderers will bring de¬ 
struction upon themselves. The Hebrew verb “kareth” 
is correctly rendered “occidetur” in the Vulgate, and 
“shall be slain” in the Douay. In this form, it always 
means a putting to death by violence, as, for instance, 
in Exod XXXI., 14; Prov. II, 22; Psalm XXXVII, 9; and 
Zach. XIII, 8 and 9. Here, again, in this verse, “Mes¬ 
sias” is in the Hebrew without the article. But it is 
here certain from the context that “Messias” is a 
proper noun. It signifies a person, or individual, who 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 59 

is slain by other men. This fact settles beyond all 
question the sense of the references to the Messiah 
in verses 24th and 25th. We may now confidently 
affirm that they apply to the one, and same Being, 
Who is surely personified in the 26th verse. More¬ 
over, unless He were a Person in these three verses, 
what follows about Him in the next verse would be un¬ 
intelligible. Hence, we hold that our interpretation 
of the personality of that Messiah, who is a Prince, a 
full-grown man, when He makes His Public Advent, 
while it has not been metaphysically demonstrated, is, 
nevertheless, practically speaking, as unquestionable 
as the authenticity, integralness, and veracity of the 
Hebrew text of the whole prophecy under considera¬ 
tion. Hence, we need pay no more attention to the 
erroneous reading of‘‘ow-osTa^o-erai xp 1 ' 0 > a ,” ( or “defi- 
ciet unctio,” for “occidetus Christus”) in the Sep- 
tuagint version, than to the erroneous notion of certain 
Rationalists that the Personal Messiah was the high- 
priest Onias, who was assassinated in B. C. 172. The 
rest of the 26th verse foretells that the people of a 
prince, who is to come, in other words, the Romans un¬ 
der Titus, will destroy the city, and the sanctuary; and 
that the end of them, in that inundation of war, and of 
war to the very limit of destruction, will be irreparable 
ruin. Here, we have a prediction of the fall of Jerusa¬ 
lem, and the fall of the Temple. These events do not 
come within the scope of the seventy sevens of years. 
But they are mentioned in order to indicate that the 
Jews, who effect the violent death of the Messiah, will 
meet with swift punishment from God, even in this 
world. Moreover, these events are again recalled in the 
next verse. 

In interpreting the 27th verse, it should be remem¬ 
bered that the Messiah, according to the 26th verse, 


60 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


is to be killed by His enemies, after the period of the 62 
weeks, added to the 7 weeks, has been completed. Conse¬ 
quently, He is to be put to death during the 70th seven 
of years. Now, we are told that “one week” (or the 
last 7 of years) “shall confirm the covenant with 
many,” (i.e., with those, who shall hearken to the Mes¬ 
siah) ; “and the middle time of that week” (or SV 2 
years) “shall make to cease the host, and the oblation.” 
Here, we have mentioned the abolition of the sacrifices 
of the Mosaic Law. Evidently, such abolition is also 
connected with the violent death of the Messiah. This 
can only mean that the sacrifice of the Messianic Priest- 
King eradicates the ritual of the Old Covenant. More¬ 
over, since His death-offering is to occur 3*/2 years after 
His Public Advent, as Prince, it will take place in A. D. 
29, or 30, according to the time in the year A. D. 26, 
that He first comes forth before the world. The 
prophecy ends with another reference to the doom 
awaiting Jerusalem, and the Temple, when the Roman 
destroyers, carrying their abominated standards of 
winged eagles, will pollute the Temple, and push on 
their work, until the unavoidable demolition, and ruin, 
decreed by God, have been inflicted upon the devastated 
Jerusalem." 

In fine, so far, we have proved that there are cer¬ 
tainly authentic, and sufficiently clear, Messianic Pre¬ 
dictions, concerning a Personal Messiah, which foretell 
Him to be the Christ from His very Incarnation; and 
which exhibit Him, as founding, by His vicarious suf¬ 
ferings, a universal, spiritual kingdom, which is on this 
earth, but which is perfected in heaven. Consequently, 
we are now in a position, where we can consider collec- 


990n the foregoing prophecy of Daniel, see Perrone, tome 2, vol. 6 pages 
33 et seq.; Corluy. vol. 1, pages 474 et seq.; and Maas, vol. 1, pages 
299 et seq. There is also pertinent and interesting material in the 
work of the Protestant minister, Henry Cowles, “Ezekiel and Dan¬ 
iel,” New York, 1867, pages 401 et seq. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 61 

tively prophecies, acknowledged to be Messianic, by or¬ 
thodox Jews, and by conservative Protestants. But, 
before so doing, we shall look into the question of the 
attitude of ancient Jewish tradition towards the divi¬ 
nity of the Messiah. 


CHAPTER II. 


Second Point of the Minor Premise. 
The Personal Messiah the 
Son of God. 


THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE TEMPLE OF 

THE TIME OF JESUS NOT AN ECHO OF 
ANCIENT TRADITION. 

According to the official teaching of the Temple of 
the time of Jesus, the Messiah was to be the “Son of 
David,” predestined and anointed by God to become the 
restorer of the ancient glory of Sion, the protector of 
the Temple, the defender of the priesthood of Aaron, 
and of the Law of Moses, the mightiest King of the 
Jews, the conqueror of the Gentiles, and the founder of 
a universal, and everlasting monarchy, Jerusalem being 
the capital. In other words, according to that official 
teaching of the Temple, He was to be a mere Man-Mes- 
siah. Moreover, that teaching, on various occasions, 
influenced the sayings, and the doings of the disciples 
of Jesus. These two facts are admitted on all sides. 
Now, with these facts staring us in the face, how can 
we assert that the Messianic Predictions of the Old 
Testament implied a God-Man Messiah? How can we 
go farther, and assert that the Divine Sonship of the 
Messiah is the sole principle of convergence, and of 
correlation of those prophecies collectively considered ? 




Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 63 

Did not the official teaching in question emanuate from 
the Sanhedrim, the echo of traditional explanation of 
the Old Testament, the mouthpiece of religious author¬ 
ity, and the source of current, popular beliefs, as well 
as the highest council, and supreme court of the Jews ? 
Have we not appealed to the traditions of the time of 
Our Lord for confirmation of our findings on the indivi¬ 
duality of the Messiah? Can we sweep aside those 
same traditions with consistency, if they do not accord 
with our view of the true character of His personality ? 
These are pertinent inquiries, which must be truly re¬ 
sponded to. 

To begin with, we may state that the Sanhedrim 
of the time of Jesus was in control of men, who were 
primarily actuated by selfish motives, and who were 
unscrupulous in their methods of attaining their ends. 
If it were expedient for the welfare of their interests, 
they put people to a violent death. In fact, they had 
no compunction at outraging justice with a mockery of 
judicial procedure, 1 and at treating an innocent person 
as the vilest of the vile besides condemning him to the 
most shameful of deaths. Hence, as it were a priori, 
we may infer that such men would pay little heed to 
any ancient belief, Messianic, or otherwise. The chief 
priests, and the ancients, or heads of princely families, 
were mainly concerned with maintaining their posi¬ 
tions, by avoiding clashes both with a rebellious Jewish 
populace, and with a grasping Roman government. 
These two classes of members of the Sanhedrim were 
proud, haughty, wealthy, and luxurious, while the 
minor priests, and the working people, were starving, 
and ground down into the dust. Consequently, they 
were hated by their inferiors. This hatred was aug- 


iSee P. Gallwey, “The Watches of the Sacred Passion,” London, 1895. 
vol. I, pages 711 et seq. 



64 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

mented by the sight of that subservience to Caesar, by 
means of which the chief priests and the ancients, in 
complicity with the Herodians and Sadducees, man¬ 
aged, for the time being, to evade collision with the 
domination of Rome. It is not difficult, therefore, to 
imagine how those chief priests and ancients would 
take to the notion of a Messiah divinely empowered to 
supersede them, and to deprive them of the flesh-pots 
of Egypt. Woe to any claimant of the Messiahship, who 
would strive to purify the Temple, as His Father's 
House. Woe to Him, if He would not protect the pow¬ 
ers of the chief priests, and of the ancients. 

The third class of members of the Sanhedrim was 
that of the “Sopherim,” or scribes. In the time of 
Jesus, the scribes were nearly all Pharisees. They 
were, likewise, associated with the latter sect in a so¬ 
ciety, outside of the Sanhedrim, which comprised all 
the “Haberim,” or influential Jews allied to uphold the 
purity of the observance of the Mosaic Law. This so¬ 
ciety, for more than a century previous to the period 
under consideration, had stood for the religious, and 
civil rights, and liberties of Israel. Even then, it was 
distinctly aggressive. It sought proselytes every¬ 
where. It strove for the ear of the common people at 
every opportunity. Its members were ready to enter 
into any religious, or patriotic discussion at any time, 
or in any place. Their spies, and emissaries were 
everywhere, in the synagogues, in the private dwelling- 
places, and on the streets. By such methods, the 
“Haberim” increased their hold, not only on those, who 
ascended to the celebrations of the annual feasts at 
Jerusalem, but also on those living on the confines of 
Galilee, and of the Perea. Thus, may be explained their 
influence, even on the disciples of Jesus. They cer¬ 
tainly had much more attention, and respect from the 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 65 

common people, than had the chief priests, and the 
princes. But the scribes, and Pharisees themselves 
were also proud, and haughty, as well as fanatical, 
and hypocritical. Doubtless, they did not realize, as 
clearly as did the other two classes of members of the 
Sanhedrim, the presence of the “personal equation/' as 
some of the German philosophers call it. They did not 
see how much selfish motives had warped their views 
of public weal, and of the Mosaic Law, as the supposed, 
sole standard of religion. But they were just as cruel 
to those, who stood in their way, as were, the high 
priests, and princes. Hence, woe to the one, who would 
undertake to amend the Law, as they interpreted it. 
Woe to the one, who would propose to render to Caesar, 
the things that were Caesar's. Woe to the one, who 
would publicly denounce the vices of the scribes, and 
Pharisees, and preach their moral reformation, as well 
as that of the rest of mankind. In fine, we may affirm 
that, not only those in control of the Sanhedrim, 2 but 
also all the upper classes of Jerusalem, chief priests, 
ancients, scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians, 
although for diverse reasons, were in conspiracy with 
Annas, the high-priest deposed by Valerius Gratus in 
A. D. 14, and with Caiphas, the puppet of the Roman 
procurator, to oppose any claimant to the Messiahship 
at that particular time/ as well as to proclaim the fu¬ 
ture coming of a “Son of David," whose personality 
was a phantom of their own creating, a mere illusion. 
Thus, the official teaching of the Temple in these mat¬ 
ters had no necessary connection with any of the an¬ 
cient traditions about the Messiah. If it happened to 
coincide with any such, this was by accident. Never- 


2See Le Camus, “The Life of Christ,” Eng. trans. New York, 1905-1908, 
vol. I, pages 84 et seq. See also in “The Cath. Encyc.,” articles on 
Sanhedrim, etc. 

SSee John, XI, 47-50. 



66 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

theless, it was foisted upon the people of Jerusalem ar¬ 
rogantly enough; and Jews from other places who went 
into that city, did not dare there to openly express their 
real opinion about it. (John, VII., 18.) 

THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE TEMPLE NOT 
A TENET SANCTIONED BY THE AUTHEN¬ 
TIC RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY IN ISRAEL. 

Moreover, that official teaching did not emanate 
from the mouthpiece of religious authority, as estab¬ 
lished by God in Israel. As Daniel had predicted the 
line of prophets, anterior to the Great Prophet, or Mes¬ 
siah, (Deut. XVIII., 15), “was sealed up ” The divinely 
commissioned, authentic teachers under the Old Cove¬ 
nant had disappeared. The chief priests had never 
been competent to directly teach religion to the people. 
In the time of Jesus, this duty was relegated to the 
scribes, who were, likewise, the legal advisers of the 
ancients. But, as has been previously intimated, with 
the scribes the Jewish religion and the Mosaic Law 
were mutually correlative, and restrictive. In compa¬ 
rison with those scribes, who immediately succeeded 
Esdras (I. Esdras, VII., 6 and 10), the scribes of the 
time of Jesus were degenerate in learning, as well as 
in moral rectitude. The former had studied, tran¬ 
scribed, and commentated the whole Palestinian 
Canon, in the light of the oral, as well as of the written 
teachings of the surviving prophets. But the latter ne¬ 
glected the prophetical books, and ignored the “hagio- 
grapha,” as they were called, and put the Law up upon 
a pedestal by itself. Of course, they were somewhat 
acquainted with the Messianic Predictions outside of 
the Law.* Indeed, beside the Messianic hope implied 


4See v. g. Matthew, I, 4-6; John, VII, 52. 




Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 67 

in the divine promises to the patriarchs, they especially 
built upon the promise of God to David (II. Kings, 
VII., 16) that the latter's throne should be made firm 
forever. But they took the Messianic Predictions, con¬ 
nected with the prophecies of the downfalls of the 
northern, and of the southern Kingdoms of Israel, to 
relate to a renovation of the glory of David's reign. 
They understood the universal extension of the New 
Sion to imply a conquest by warfare of the whole world. 
They interpreted the promises of Messianic Salvation, 
following the political overthrow, and punishment of 
Israel, to signify the inauguration in this world of an 
eternal, Messianic Kingdom, to which all the Gentiles 
should bow in submission. They attached a literal, or 
material sense to all the typical references to that 
Kingdom. They passed lightly over all allusions to a 
Suffering Messiah, as not yet intelligible. They found 
no inner meaning in Gen. III., 15, or in Deut, XVIIL, 
15. Strange as it may appear, the common people, out¬ 
side of Jerusalem, had a better comprehension, even of 
what Moses wrote in the Law about the Messiah, than 
those scribes had. 5 Although the latter were aware 
that the coming of the Messiah 6 must have been at 
hand, the people realized this still more clearly, 7 besides 
possessing a deeper insight into His attributes as a 
prophet, and a miracle-worker. 8 Moreover, the scribes 
mixed up the prophecies of the advent of the Messiah, 
with those, which concerned the Last Judgment; and, 
hence, they taught that Elias had to precede, and to 
announce the Messiah. Finally, no notion of anything 
superhuman in the personality of the Messiah could 
penetrate into the minds of the scribes of the time of 


5See John, I, 45; and XII, 34. 
GJohn I, 19-28. 

TLuke, III, 15. 

8John VII, 31 ; 40-43. 



68 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

Jesus. They were utterly non-plussed, when anything 
like the Ha-Adon prophecy was forced on their notice. 9 
In fine, the official teaching of the Temple on the char¬ 
acter of the Messiah had not the weight of authorita¬ 
tive science of religion behind it. 

THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE TEMPLE NOT 
IN ACCORD WITH THE POPULAR BELIEFS 
ABOUT THE MESSIAH. 

Further, that official teaching, as has been already 
hinted, was not in accordance with the popular beliefs 
about the superhuman, if not absolutely divine charac¬ 
ter of the Messiah, which obtained outside of Jeru¬ 
salem. Those beliefs found constant expression, and 
discussion in the synagogues. As in the time of St. 
Paul, so, likewise, in the time of Jesus, any Jew, who 
felt that he had a message to deliver, could secure a 
hearing from the ruler of any synagogue. In the time 
of Jesus, no message was so acceptable, as that, which 
voiced the Messianic hope. Nor had the popular opi¬ 
nions about the Messiah sprung up suddenly. They had 
been in vogue for, at least, a century before the time 
of Jesus. In regard to what was really taught at the 
Temple in Jerusalem during that century, we are in 
the dark. By the time that Our Blessed Lord had ap¬ 
peared on the scene, all previous records of the notions 
of the doctors of the Law about the Messiah had been 
either lost, or deliberately destroyed. But there are 
yet extant in writing the coeval, popular notions about 
the Messiah, which, as is commonly admitted by all 
kinds of authorities on the subject, became more vivid, 
and general in the time of Jesus, than ever before. 
Indeed, writings of a calibre similar to those about to 


DMark, XII, 35-40. 




Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 69 

he noticed, continued to appear for a century after the 
time of Jesus. We ourselves have at hand the “Apoca¬ 
lypse of Esdras,” the most important of the writings in 
question, since it is bound into the vulgate. In regard 
to the others, we shall depend on M. Lepin, who has 
made a study of such apocrypha of the Old Testa¬ 
ment. 10 

The “Apocalypse of Esdras” was undoubtedly com¬ 
pleted before the Christian Era had begun. Most critics 
place its date of composition between B. C. 96 and B. 
C. 81. It was originally written either in Hebrew, or in 
Greek. Its author is unknown. It repeatedly, and ex¬ 
plicitly affirms that the Messiah pre-exists in heaven, 
and that He is the Son of God, who, at the appointed 
time, will send Him forth into the world. “Revelabitur 
enim filius meus Jesus cum his qui cum eo sunt, et 
jucunda—buntur qui relicti sunt in annis quadringen- 
tis. Et erit post annos hos, et morietus filius meus 
Christus, et omnes qui spiramentum habent ho¬ 
mines.” 11 “Et erit, cum fient haec, et contingent signa 
quae ante ostendi tibi, et tunc revelabitur filius meus, 
quern vidisti, ut virum ascendentem.” “Ipse autem 
filius meus arguet quae adinvenerunt Gentes” etc. 
“Sicut non potes haec vel scrutari, vel scire quae sunt 
in profundo maris: sic non poterit quisque super ter¬ 
rain videre filium meum, vel eos qui cum eo sunt, nisi in 
tempore 12 diei.” Such are some of the affirmations in 
point. In them the Messiah, the “Son of God,” is 
called both Jesus, (“filius meus Jesus”), and Christ 
(“filius meus Christus”). Is it wonderful that many 
of the early Christians thought this work to be a gen¬ 
uine production of Esdras himself? The “Book of 

JOSee Lopin, op. cit., pages 02 et seq. Also L-Cl. Fillion, “Les etapes du 
rationalisme,” Paris, 1911, page 275. 
liSee IV Esdras, VII, 28 & 29. 

12See IV Esdras, XIII, 32, 37, 52. 



70 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

Henoch” is not now extant in the original Hebrew; blit 
it was the work of a Jewish writer of the second cen¬ 
tury before Christ, although the middle part of it may 
have been interpolated later. According to this work, 
the Messiah is He, who is foretold in Daniel, VII., 13. 
He pre-existed with God before the creation of the 
world, and, eventually, is to descend from heaven, in 
order to manifest Himself on earth. According to the 
Jewish portion of the Sibylline Oracles, the Messiah 
will be a holy king, who shall rule the world in a time 
of universal peace, and who shall hold His sceptre for 
eternity. This portion of the Oracles was certainly 
composed before the Christian Era. Like IV. Esdras, 
both these Oracles, and the “Book of Henoch” expli- 
city call the Messiah the “Son of God.”-* 5 Undoubt¬ 
edly, the writers of all such works were governed by 
the genius of their native language. They, likewise, 
were aware of that metaphorical use of the title of “Son 
of God” in the Old Testament, to which Our Blessed 
Lord Himself referred. (John, X., 34 and 35). But, on 
the other hand, they knew what they wished to convey 
to other minds; and the contexts of their respective 
productions prove clearly that they looked upon the 
Messiah as the “Son of God” in some superhuman, if 
not divine sense. The latter is far more probable, al¬ 
though they had no deep, theological insight into the 
mystery of the Trinity. Yet, without any profound 
understanding of what natural, divine filiation could 
mean in the Messiah, they insisted that He was eter¬ 
nal, both in origin, and in duration; and they invested 
Him with attributes, which were absolutely divine. 
Moreover, the Jewish people of the time of Jesus, who 
read, and discussed their productions, should be cre¬ 
dited with sufficient intelligence to comprehend the 


ISSee references in Lepin, page 95. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 71 

same. In fine, we have no intention of neglecting any 
Jewish tradition about the personality of the Messiah, 
not even that, which has been concocted since the time 
of Jesus. But we also hearken to Christian tradition 
on the underlying meaning of the totality of the Mes¬ 
sianic Predictions, especially since the converted Jews 
of primitive Christianity would never have listened to 
Jesus, and to His disciples, and to the writers of the 
New Testament, upon their views of the personality 
of the Messiah, unless similar, and hereditary notions 
on the same point had been current in Israel. Indeed, 
both a priori, and a posteriori, it is now safe to say that 
there had always been certain chosen souls in Israel, 
who had retained the uncontaminated doctrine of the 
prophets upon the Divine Sonship of the Messiah. Be¬ 
sides, as far as the interpretation, at the present day, 
of the fundamental meaning of the personality of the 
Messiah is concerned, centuries of study of the texts of 
the prophecies, as found in the canon of Esdras, 
beyond which we need not step, must count for some¬ 
thing. 

THE DIVINE SONSHIP THE SOLE KEY TO THE 
INTERPRETATION OF THE MESSIANIC PRO¬ 
PHECIES COLLECTIVELY CONSIDERED. 

In the Book of Genesis are found the divine prom¬ 
ises to the patriarchs, which implied the Messianic 
hope. The passages from Genesis in point 1 * foretell 
the descent of the Messiah, according to the flesh, from 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In many other places in 
Holy Writ, 15 the Messianic character of these passages 
from Genesis is presupposed. It was so understood by 

See Gen. XII, 1-9; XVII, 1-9; XVIII, 17-19; XXII, 16-18; XXVI, 1-5: 
XXVIII, 10-15. See also Corluy, vol. I, pages 373 et seq., especially 
383 & 384 ; Maas, vol. I, pages 221 et seq. 

15See references in Maas, vol. I, page 226. 



72 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


all the Fathers of the early church. In these passages, 
Abraham is promised twice that in himself, and once 
that in his “seed,” all the nations of the earth shall be 
blessed; Isaac is promised that in his “seed” the na¬ 
tional blessing shall be given to the world; and Jacob 
is promised the same blessing in himself, and in his 
“seed.” To such Jews, and Gentiles, as admit that the 
Old Testament is the Word of God, we may say that, 
after the fact, it is now certain that the blessings 
promised to the three patriarchs, and relating to their 
descendant, the Messiah, were primarily spiritual. 
Moreover, with the divine promises just considered, 
must be correlated the prophecy of the dying Jacob, 
and the prophecy of Balaam. In Gen., XLIX., 26 8-12, 
the dying Jacob predicted the coming of the lion of the 
tribe of Juda, by whom is meant the Messiah, as we 
know from the Apocalypse, V., 5. His prophecy was 
to be fulfilled, when the sceptre, and the ruler's staff 
passed from the tribe of Juda. According to the pro¬ 
phecy of Balaam, 27 the “star,” or “ruler” out of Jacob, 
seems to indicate a mighty king, a great warrior, who 
will overthrow Moab, and Edom. This is one of those 
prophecies, which appear to favor the interpretation 
of the personality of the Messiah, voiced in the official 
teaching of the Temple, of the time of Jesus. Yet, there 
is historical proof that the activity of the Messiah was 
described figuratively in the prophecy of Balaam. 

With the foregoing Messianic references in the 
Pentateuch, must be made to converge Gen., III., 15, 
Gen., XIV., 14-20, Deut., XVIII., 15, and Job, XIX., 23- 
27. In Gen., 28 III., 15, “the woman” typically, if not 
literally, signifies the mother of the Messiah; while, by 


2 6See Corluy, vol. I, pages 456 et seq., and Maas, vol. I, pages 282 et sea. 
17See Numb. XXIV, 15-19. Maas, vol. I, pages 237 et seq. 

I8See Corluy, vol. I, pages 347 et seq., especially 371 & 372 : Maas vol 
I, pages 184 et seq. 





Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 73 

synecdoche, “seed” signifies the offspring of Eve col¬ 
lectively taken, in so far as it comprises the kingdom, 
or mystical body, of the Son by excellence, or the Mes¬ 
siah, and inasmuchas it is opposed to the totality of 
evil men, or “children of the devil.” (Acts. XIII., 10). 
The crushing of the serpent's head signifies the over- 
throw of the reign of the devil, or reign of sin. Conse¬ 
quently, the very first reference in the Bible to the Mes¬ 
siah is spiritual. If we add our theological knowledge 
of the necessity of opposition to the reign of sin by one 
never under the bondage of sin, to the knowledge, im¬ 
parted in this first reference to the Messiah, about the 
spirituality of His mission, we have already an implied 
indication of the divinity of His Person. This indica¬ 
tion, standing, as it does, at the very head of the 
Thorah, is of supreme importance for the subsequent 
study of the prophetic utterances about the character 
of the Messiah. In Gen., XIV., 14-20, He is typified in 
Melchisedech, as we noted in our treatment of Psalm 
CIX. Thus, but obscurely, we have the idea of the 
Messianic Priest, and Victim, as explicative of the spir¬ 
ituality of His mission. In Deut., XVIII., 15, 19 He 
appears as the Great Prophet of the New Covenant, 
and, hence, as the ancient Jews clearly understood, as 
the Word, or Wisdom, or teacher, seer, and miracle- 
worker, from on high. Hence, from what the first 
prophet, Moses, wrote in the Law about the Christ, it 
can be gathered that the latter is the Saviour, and 
“Light” of the world, who, in Person, is divine. More¬ 
over, according to St. Jerome, Bellarmine, and others, 
Moses was also author of the Book of Job. 29 No sane 
critic places this book later than the time of Solomon. 


J9See Corluy, vol. 1, pages 447 et seq.; Maas, vol. II, pages 19 et seq.; 
Acts III, 22 & 23 ; VII, 37; X, 43 ; and compare with John, I, 45 ; 
V, 45-47. 

20See Comely, pages 307 et seq.; Seisenberger, pages 300-302 ; Maas, vol. 
II, page's 385 et seq.; Corluy, vol. I, pages 278 et seq. 



74 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


But, in Job, XIX., 23-27, whenever written, it is plainly 
stated that, in the general resurrection of the dead, the 
holy man will see God Incarnate. Hence, the Holy 
Ghost certainly predicted through Job the Second Ad¬ 
vent of the God-Man-Messiah. 

The Messianic references of patriarchal times led 
up to the fact that the Messiah was to be the “Son of 
David.” The scribes would have been nearer to the 
truth about the “Son of David, * 1 ” if they had consulted 
David himself on the interpretation of his relationship 
to the Messiah, as well as on the character of the lat¬ 
ter. This they could have obtained in his Psalms. But 
they neglected the Psalter, 21 which they regarded as 
one of the “hagiographa.” Before we ourselves turn 
to David's Psalms, it may be well to point out that, 
even in II. Kings, VII., 1-16, 22 there cannot be question 
of a mere warrior king, who is to descend from David. 
Through Nathan, God promises that the throne of 
David shall be firm forever, because the Messiah will 
be his seed. But He also adds—“I will be to him a 
father, and he shall be to me a son.” In a typical sense, 
these words certainly apply to the Messiah, as we know 
from Heb. I., 5, and Acts, II., 30. Consequently, they 
import His natural, divine filiation. Now, what kind of 
a “Son of David” did David himself really foresee? 

David foresaw the Messianic Victim, who becomes 
man. (Heb. X., 5). Thus, Psalm XXI. is literally of 
the Suffering Messiah, whose hands and feet are dug, 
and whose vicarious sorrows, and afflictions are instru¬ 
mental in founding the eternal kingdom of the con¬ 
verted world. It is the Messiah Himself, who is speak- 


2lSee “The Cath. Encyc.,” art. “PsalmsComely “Synopses Omn. Lib 
Sac. U. T.,” Paris, 1899, pages 129 et seq.; and Bellarmine, op. cit. 
passim. 

22See also I Para, XVII, 1-17; Corluy, vol. I, pages 384-393 ; Maas, vol. 

I, pages 284 et seq. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 75 

ing in the Psalm. 23 David, as it were in an ecstasy, and 
in a moral union with the personality of the Messiah, is 
revealing the soul of the Suffering Messiah in prayer. 
The council of the malignant of verse 17th is more fully 
described in Wisdom II., 12-20. 2 * So we may be per¬ 
mitted to let its light illumine us here. In that pas¬ 
sage, they “examine him by outrages and tortures,” 
and “condemn him to a most shameful death”, because 
he “calleth himself the Son of God,” and “glorieth that 
he hath God for his father.” Hence, we may conclude 
that the divinity of the Messiah is implied in Psalm 
XXI.; 25 or, at least, as the sequel will show, that it 
was behind that grand psalm in David’s mind. Psalm 
XXXIX., 26 at least, in a typical sense, brings out the 
Suffering Messiah, as pre-existent, and as having a 
body fitted to Him, in order to do the will of God. This 
we are sure of from Heb., X., 5-9. Moreover, David 
foresaw the resurrection from the dead of Him, who 
had been the Messianic Victim, as is shown in Psalm 
XV., 9 and 10, where 27 it is said of the Messiah in 
person—“My flesh also shall rest in hope. Because 
thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; nor wilt thou give 
thy holy one to see corruption.” We have it on the 
authority of St. Peter (Acts, II., 25-31), and of St. 
Paul (Acts, XIII., 35-37) that these words of this psalm 
apply literally to the Resurrection of the Christ. More¬ 
over, David foresaw the latter’s Ascension into heaven. 
For, Psalm LXVII., 19, 28 says—“Thou hast ascended on 
high, thou hast led captivity captive; thou hast re¬ 
ceived gifts in men.” But in Ephesians IV., 8-10, we 

2SSee Matthew, XXVII, 35, 46; John, XIX, 24; & Heb., II, 12. 

24 See Maas, vol. II, pages 258 et seq. 

25Cornely, “Synopses,” pages 137 & 138; Corluy, vol. II, pages 111 et 
seq., 131-133; Maas, vol. II, pages 264 et seq.; Bellarmine, pages 72 
et seq. 

26Maas, vol. II, pages 153 et seq. 

27 Bellarmine, pages 48 et seq.; Maas, vol. II, pages 358 et seq. 
28 Bellarmine, pages 273 et seq.; Maas, vol. II, pages 407 et seq. 



76 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

, *■ 

read—“Ascending on high, he led captivity captive; he 
gave gifts to men. Now that he ascended, what is it, 
but because he also descended first into the lower parts 
of the earth ? He that descended is the same also that 
ascended above all the heavens, that he might fill all 
things.” Since St. Paul is undoubtedly expounding 
the verse cited from Psalm LXVII., this verse refers 
typically to the Ascension of the Christ into heaven. 
Consequently, in the Ascension, if not in the Resurrec¬ 
tion, of the Messiah, David foresaw that his descendant 
according to the flesh, was likewise God, God-Man, the 
eternally pre-existent Being, with a body fitted to Him 
in time. If we turn back to Psalm CIX., we must con¬ 
clude that Ha-Adon is the Son, and Jehovah is the 
Father in the Trinity. Further, in Psalm II., which we 
reserve for later consideration, it is expressly revealed 
by God through David that the Messiah is the Son of 
God in the strict and proper sense of the words. Of the 
other 80 Psalms of David, at least M 29 are Messianic 
in one way, or another. Of these 34, about 12 s0 refer to 
the king of glory. But, in view of the light already 
shed on David's mind, we can affirm, without further 
investigation, that he foresaw no Messianic offspring, 
who was to be another Alexander, or Napoleon. 

The series of Messianic Predictions in the older 
prophetic books of the Old Testament by no means 
pointed to a mere renovation of the glory of David's 
reign, or to a mere temporal glory of the universal, and 
everlasting New Sion. In Amos, IX., 11-14, we read that 
the Lord will raise up the tabernacle of David, and close 
up the breaches of its walls, and rebuild it as in the 
days of old. Moreover, its sway shall extend over the 


29Psalms 3, 4, 8, 23, 26, 29, 37, 39, 40, 42, 50, 52, 53, 54, 58, 59. 
60. 62, 66, 68, 69, 70, 90, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 104, 108, 140, 141 
and 142. 

SOPsalms 13, 20, 23, 29, 53, 59, 66, 67, 90, 92. 96 and 97. 



) Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 77 

nations; Israel shall return in prosperous tirAes, hnd 
rebuild the cities, and no more be plucked out of its 
land. In Joel, II., 28—III., 21, we read that the Lord 
will restore Juda, and Jerusalem, and punish their ene¬ 
mies. The plough-shares shall be cut into swords, and 
the spades into spears; and there shall be a holy war 
against the nations, waged by the residue, whom the 
Lord shall call. The Lord God shall dwell in Sion, the 
holy mountain, and Judaea shall be inhabited forever, 
and Jerusalem to generation, and generation. In O 
see, XIV., 5-10, there is a somewhat similar divine 
promise to the converted of Israel. Likewise, in Mich- 
eas, IV., V., and VII., to Sion, and the remnant of 
Jacob. In the second part of Isaias (ch. XL.-LXVI.,) 
which is Messianic throughout, the last section, con¬ 
sisting of ch. LX.-LXVI., would appear to redound with 
the military glory of the everlasting Sion. “Arise, be 
enlightened, O Jerusalem: for thy light is come, and 

the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. And 

the Gentiles, shall walk in thy light, and kings in the 
brightness of thy rising.... And thy gates shall be 
opened continually: they shall not be shut day nor 
night, that the strength of the Gentiles may be brought 
to thee; and their kings may be brought. For the na¬ 
tion and the kingdom that will not serve thee shall 
perish: and the Gentiles shall be wasted with desola¬ 
tion .... And the children of them that afflict thee, 
shall come bowing down to thee, and all that slandered 
thee, shall worship the steps of thy feet, and shall 
call thee the city of the Lord, the Sion of the Holy One 
of Israel. Because thou wast forsaken, and hated, and 
there was none that passed through thee, I will make 
thee to be an everlasting glory, a joy unto generation 

and generation. And thy people shall all be 

just, they shall inherit the land forever,” etc., as in 




78 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


ch. LX. “And they shall build the places that have 
been waste from of old, and shall raise up ancient ruins,> 
and shall repair the desolate cities, that were des¬ 
troyed for generation and generation. And strangers 
shall stand, and shall feed your flocks: and the sons of 
strangers shall be your husbandmen, and the dressers 
of your vines ,, (LXI., 4 and 5). “For Sion’s sake I will 
not hold my peace, and for the sake of Jerusalem, I will 
not rest till her just one come forth as brightness, and 
her saviour be lighted as a lamp. And the Gentiles 
shall see thy just one, and all kings thy glorious one.” 
(LXII., 1 and 2). This “defender to save” says—“I 
have trodden the wine-press alone, and of the Gentiles 
there is not a man with me: I have trampled on them in 
my indignation, and have trodden them down in my 
wrath, and their blood is sprinkled upon my garments, 
and I have stained all my apparel.” (LXIII., 3). The 
prosperity, universality, and holiness of the new, and 
everlasting Jerusalem are dilated on with exuberance, 
in LXV. 17-25, and LXVI., 10-23. In Jeremias, XXX., 
8-10,16,18, 20-22, we read—“And it shall come to pass 
in that day saith the Lord of hosts, that I will break 
his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst his bands: 
and strangers shall no more rule over him; but they 
shall serve the Lord their God, and David their King, 
whom I will raise up to them. Therefore, fear thou 
not, my servant Jacob, saith the Lord, neither be dis¬ 
mayed, 0 Israel: for behold I will save thee from a 
country afar off, and thy seed from the land of their 
captivity; and Jacob shall return, and be at rest, and 
abound with all good things, and there shall be none 
whom he may fear. Therefore all they that de¬ 

vour thee, shall be devoured; and all thy enemies shall 
be carried into captivity: and they that waste thee shall 
be wasted, and all that prey upon thee, I will give for a 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 79 

prey. Behold I will bring back the captivity of 

the pavilions of Jacob, and will have pity on his houses, 
and the city shall be built in her high place, and the 
temple shall be founded according to the order thereof 
. And their children shall be as from the begin¬ 
ning, and their assembly shall be permanent before 
me: and I will visit against all that afflict them. And 
their leaders shall be of themselves: and their prince 
shall come forth from the midst of them; and I will 
bring him near, and he shall come to me; for who is 
this that setteth his heart to approach to me, saith the 
Lord ? And you shall be my people: and I will be your 
God.'' In ch. III., 17, we are told that “Jerusalem shall 
be called the throne of the Lord, and all the nations 
shall be gathered together to it.” In ch. XXXII., 36— 
XXXIII., 26, it is promised that God's covenant with 
His people will be everlasting. In Ezechiel, XXXIV., 
22-31, there is the promise of peace, and of blessing to 
the house of Israel, while in ch. XL.-XLVIII., there is 
foretold the rebuilding of the Temple, to which the 
glory of God shall return, and from which the holy 
waters shall issue. Moreover, the future apportion¬ 
ments of lands to the 12 tribes of Israel, and the di¬ 
mensions, and gates of the holy city are described. In 
Daniel, II., 44 and 45, there is predicted the everlasting 
Kingdom, which God will set up, and which will never 
be delivered to another people, “the stone,” which will 
be cut without hands out of the mountain. The ancient 
Jews understood this “stone” to signify the future 
kingdom, which Israel was to make universal, and per¬ 
petual. 

However, we now know that all such passages in 
the earlier prophets as those cited, are illustrative of 
the universal, and perpetual kingdom of the Messiah, 
excepting in so far as they regard the release from the 




80 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


Babylonian Captivity, and the consequent, but tempo¬ 
rary rebuilding of the Temple, and of Jerusalem. Apart 
from this, however, all such passages must be made 
to converge with such as follow. Amos, VIII., 9, 31 men¬ 
tions the darkness at mid-day, which is connected with 
the violent death of the Messiah. Joel, II., 28-32, 32 
mentions the effusion of the Holy Ghost upon the 
young, and the old, which, as we are told by St. Peter, 
(Acts, II., 14-31) concerns the advent of the Messianic 
Kingdom under its visible head. Osee, XIII., 14, 33 
shows that He, who triumphs over death, is a Spirit¬ 
ual Redeemer. Micheas, V., 2, depicts the “Ruler,” who, 
has existed from eternity before His Incarnation. The 
Emmanuel Prophecy of Isaias, VII., 14, means in fact 
“God with us,” Jehovah Himself, just as “the child 
born to us” of ch. IX., 6, 3 * is in fact “God the Mighty,” 
Jehovah Himself. The word “El,” used in this last 
passage always signifies Jehovah Himself in the Old 
Testament. It is evident that Isaias VII., 14, and IX., 6, 
must be correlated. They mutually explain each other. 
In Isaias, XLIX., it is Emmanuel, who is to bring salva¬ 
tion to the Gentiles. Yet, as the meek, and pacific 
“Servant” of ch. XLII., He is contrasted with Cyrus, 
the warrior liberator of ch. XLV. We have shown from 
ch. LIIL, 1-7, that the salvation through Him is univer¬ 
sal, and results from His vicarious suffering. Jeremias, 
XI., 19, 35 reads—“And I was as a meek lamb, that is car¬ 
ried to be a victim: and I knew not that they had de¬ 
vised counsels against me, saying: Let us put wood on 
his bread, and cut him off from the land of the living, 
and let his name be remembered no more.” In this pas¬ 
sage Jeremias is a figure of the Messiah. We are here 

3lMaas, vol. II, pages 288 et seq. 

S2Maas, vol. II, pages 421 et seq. 

S3Maas, vol. II, pages 380 et seq. 

SjCorluy, vol. T, pages 421 et seq. 

35Maas, vol. II. pages 163 et seq. 





Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 81 

strikingly reminded of that “council of the malignant,” 
to which we have previously alluded, as well as of the 
“lamb” of Isaias, LIII., 7. In Jer., XXXI., 22, there is 
a parellel to the Emmanual Prophecy of Isaias, VII., 14. 
In Jer., XXIII., 5 and 6, 36 we read—“Behold the days 
come, saith the Lord, and I will raise up to David a 
just branch: and a king shall reign, and shall be wise: 
and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. 
In those days shall Juda be saved, and Israel shall 
dwell confidently: and this is the name that they shall 
call him: the Lord our just one.” Similarly, in Jer., 
ch. XXXIII., 16, we have—“In those days shall Juda 
be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell securely: and this 
is the name that they shall call him, The Lord our 
just one.” In both places in the original, “the Lord our 
just one” is “Jehovah our Justice.” But, in both places 
also, the Hebrew must be admitted to be rather in¬ 
definite about the precise application of the word “Je¬ 
hovah.” 

Nevertheless, He, who is named “Jehovah” in 
those passages, is the same person who is called “El,” 
by Isaias, and “Elohim,” in verse 7th of Psalm XLIV., 37 
of the Sons of Core. As we know from St. Paul (Heb. 
I., 8), the “Elohim” of the Psalm in question certainly 
means that the Messiah is named God, and is in fact 
God. The same holds true of the “El” of Isaias. The 
parity should be extended to the “Jehovah our justice” 
of Jeremias. Daniel, VII., 18-27, 38 describes the com¬ 
ing of the Messiah at the end of the world. He is to 
appear “like the son of man,” “with the clouds of 
heaven,” before the, throne of “the Ancient of days.” 
There, He shall receive His universal, and everlasting 


SfiMaas, vol. I, pages 255 et seq. 

S7Corluy, vol. II, pages 173 et seq.; also "The Cath. Encyc., art. 
"Elohim.’’ 

S8See Maas, vol. I, pages 398 et seq. 



82 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

Kingdom, when the power of Antichrist has “been 
taken away,” and has perished “even to the end.” It 
is certain that the Messiah of this passage of the book 
of Daniel is described as the God-Man, who is judge on 
the Last Day. 

In the later prophets, we have the series of Mes¬ 
sianic Predictions which were made after national con¬ 
ditions had ceased, at least for the time being, to be 
suggestive of metaphors of war, and slavery, and sub¬ 
sequent liberation. They were written down in a period 
of reconstruction. Thus, we are scarcely prepared for 
the figurative language of some of them. Yet, in Ag- 
geus, II., 22-24, we run into the mysterious, and per¬ 
plexing passage, wherein Zorobabel, son of Salathiel, 
is apparently the subject of a Messianic promise of 
ascendency over the Gentiles. After the fact, however, 
we are justified in asserting that Zorobabel was merely 
a figure of the true Messiah. But it is particularly in 
Zachary, or Zacharias, that we meet with rather unan¬ 
ticipated forms of Messianic utterances. Thus, in ch. 
II., this prophet, who began his predictions in the same 
year as did Aggeus, appears to hold up Jerusalem as 
the capital of a Kingdom, wherein some of Juda, and 
many nations of Gentiles shall be congregated as the 
people of the Lord. In ch. VIII., Jerusalem is glorified, 
as “the City of Truth, and the Mountain of the Lord of 
hosts, the sanctified Mountain,” to which joy, and great 
prosperity shall return. “And many peoples, and strong 
nations shall come to seek the Lord of hosts in Jeru¬ 
salem.” In ch. IX., 1-8, X., 8-12, and XII., 1-9, the holy 
war is depicted in glowing colors; while in ch. XIV., 
after all nations have attacked, and taken, and sacked 
Jerusalem, and have carried off half of the city into cap¬ 
tivity, at some epoch, which is not definitely designated, 
“then the Lord shall go forth, and shall fight against 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 83 

those nations, as when he fought in the days of bat¬ 
tle;” “and the Lord my God shall come, and all the 
saints with him“and the Lord shall be king over all 
the earth: in that day shall be one Lord, and his name 
shall be one.” Moreover, Jerusalem “shall be exalted”, 
“and people shall dwell in it, and there shall be no 
more an anathema: but Jerusalem shall sit secure.” 
Her enemies shall be punished, and all that are left of 
the nations shall go up annually to that city, in order 
to adore the Lord of hosts. 

However, we hardly need to repeat what has al¬ 
ready been said about similar utterances of the older 
prophets. Moreover, the latter prophets do not depict 
the Messianic “Prince of Peace” as one, who is to build 
a house of God. In Aggeus, II., 8, 59 we read—“And I 
will move all nations: and the desired of all nations 
shall come; and I will fill this house with glory: saith 
the Lord of hosts.” After the destruction of Jerusalem 
in A. D. 70, and, especially, after the Dispersion in 
A. D. 132, many Jews understood the “house” in ques¬ 
tion to be a new temple, which the Messiah, the “De¬ 
sired of all Nations,” would yet come to build, and to 
render more glorious than that of Solomon. But the 
context shows that this “house” was the Temple, which 
was restored a few years after the time, when Aggeus 
had written this prediction. (I. Esdras, VI., 15). A 
somewhat similar passage in Zach. VI., 12 and 13, how¬ 
ever, afforded more plausible ground for the Jewish 
notion that the Messiah was to build a material temple. 
It reads—“Thus saith the Lord of hosts, saying: Be¬ 
hold a man, the orient is his name; and under him shall 
he spring up, and shall build a temple to the Lord. 
Yea, he shall build a temple to the Lord: and he shall 
bear the glory, and shall sit, and rule upon his throne: 


39See Corluy, vol. I, pages 515 et seq. 



84 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the coun¬ 
sel of peace shall be between them both.” It is certain 
that the Hebrew word, “tsemachrendered “the 
Orient” here, as likewise in ch., III., 8, means the Mes¬ 
siah. Moreover, it is twice affirmed that He shall build 
a temple. But the Messiah foretold here is the same 
as He, who was foretold in Dan., VII., and IX. It is 
gratuitous to say that either prophet had a notion of 
two Messiahs. Zachary adds certain details to the cir¬ 
cumstances regarding the first coming of Him, whose 
violent death is mentioned in Dan., IX. Previously, He 
is to enter Jerusalem, as King, and Saviour, poor, and 
just, “riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of 
an ass.” (ch. IX., 9).^ Afterwards, its inhabitants 
are to look upon Him, “whom they have pierced” (ch, 
XII., 10),^ “the Shepherd, whom they have struck” 
(ch. XIII., 6 and 7).* 2 But, as we have shown, the 
violent death of the Messiah took place in A. D. 29, or 
80. At that time, the only material Temple at Jeru¬ 
salem was the one finished in the sixth year of the 
reign of Darius Hystaspis, and, afterwards, embellished 
by Herod. Therefore, the Messiah did not build a mat¬ 
erial temple at that city, the only place in question. In¬ 
deed, it is the Priest-King of Psalm CIX., who is pic¬ 
tured in Zach. VI. The Jesus, the son of Josedec, the 
high-priest, who is symbolically crowned, is the figure 
of the Messiah in this regard. The Temple, soon to be 
completed, is the figure of the glory of His sacerdotal, 
and sacrificial function. The New Sion is the figure of 
His Kingdom. Moreover, the second coming of the 
Messiah, described in Dan., VII., and, according to Mal- 

J f 0See Maas, vol. II, pages 123 et seq. Some critics have vainly claime'd 
that Zach. IX-XIV was written by an author different from the 
writer of ch. I-VIII. See Comely, “Comp. Introd. in S. S.,” page 
444 ; and Seisenberger, page 350. See also Matthew, XXI, 5, and 
John, XII, 15. 

JlMaas, vol. II, pages 312 et seq., and John, XIX, 37. 

.j2Maas, vol. II, pages 252 et seq. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 85 

achy, IV., 1-5, preceded by the return of Elias, was not 
foreign to the thoughts of Zachary himself. 

In Mai. I., IV 3 is the prediction that the One Sacri¬ 
fice of “the Priest forever” is to be continued, and com¬ 
memorated, in an unbloody manner, through a second¬ 
ary priesthood, in temples everywhere, and to the end 
of time. The verse reads—“For from the rising of the 
sun even to the going down, my name is great among 
the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and 
there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my 
name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of 
hosts.” Orthodox Jews have claimed that this verse 
refers to the worship of the true God among the Gen¬ 
tiles, as practised and inculcated by the Jews after 
their Dispersion. Not content with this, certain Jewish 
zealots have held that the verse in question regards 
the proselytizing of the nations, which is to follow 
after Jerusalem, as the, national centre of a re-col¬ 
lected Israel, shall have been restored. This dream of 
Juda ha-Levi^ of the eleventh century has, within re¬ 
cent years, assumed a realistic aspect, in so far as Jews 
of means, and of power have striven to stir up a world¬ 
wide movement amongst their people towards the re¬ 
colonizing, and recovery of Jerusalem. But the pro¬ 
phecy of Malachy concerns what is to happen among 
the Gentiles, in formal opposition to sacrifices of a 
Jewish priesthood, utterly reprobated by Jehovah. The 
context demonstrates this. Finally, in Mai. III., V 5 
we read—“Behold I send my angel, and he shall pre¬ 
pare the way before my face. And presently the Lord, 
whom you seek, and the Angel of the testament, whom 
you desire, shall come to his temple. Behold, he cometh, 

43Corluy, vol. II, pages 398 et seq. 

44 See Munk, “Melanges,” etc., page 484 ; Spiegler, page 261 ; Steinsehnei- 
der, pages 402 et seq. 

45Corlu.y, vol. I, pages 524 et seq., and 142 & 143 ; Maas, vol. I, pages 
435 et seq.; Lepin, pages 99 et seq. 



86 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

saith the Lord of hosts.” In the last verse of the pre¬ 
vious chapter, Malachy takes notice of the inquiry of 
the people concerning the time, when the wicked shall 
be punished, and when “the God of Judgment” will 
manifest Himself. In chapters 3rd and 4th, the pro¬ 
phet teaches that judgment will come upon the wicked, 
at the twofold coming of the Messiah. In its final, and 
irrevocable form, judgment will come at the advent, to 
be heralded by Elias (ch. IV., 5). But, likewise, in 
connection with the first coming of the Messiah, a judg¬ 
ment shall descend upon Juda, and Jerusalem, because 
of their unworthiness. Moreover, at that first coming, 
the sons of Levi will be metaphorically purified by the 
institution of a new priesthood, under the Messiah, as 
the principal minister. In the new church, symbolized 
by Juda, and Jerusalem (ch. III., 4), will be fulfilled the 
prophecy of ch. I., 11. In the verse cited, ch. III., 1, 
He, who speaks, saying that He will send His angel, 
who shall prepare the way before His face, is the Mes¬ 
siah; and He is therein identified with Jehovah Him¬ 
self. For, Matthew, XI., 10, makes the Father address 
His Son, saying—“I will send my angel before Thy 
face.” Evidently, this angel is not Elias, who is not 
to appear, until the end of the world is at hand. Nor 
is it Malachy himself. The latter’s name would corres¬ 
pond to the office of malak, or angel, or precursor. But 
he lived four centuries before the coming of the Mes¬ 
siah on earth.* 6 “And presently” (lit. in Hebrew, sud¬ 
denly, or unexpectedly) “the Lord” (Ha-Adon) “whom 
you seek, and the Angel of the testament, whom you 
desire, shall come to his temple” (the same temple as 
in Ag. II., 8, the second Temple of Jerusalem). “Be¬ 
hold he cometh” (figuratively, the prophet puts the 
present tense of the verb “to come” for the future) 


46See treatment of Dan. IX, 24-27, in ch. I. 




Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 87 

“saith the Lord of hosts” (i. e. Jehovah, the Lord of 
the universe). The two parallel clauses, “the Lord, 
whom you seek”, and “the Angel of the testament, 
whom you desire,” certainly refer to the one and same 
Person. No one, who understands the meaning of the 
original Hebrew, will deny this. This Person, with the 
two names of “Ha-Adon,” and “Malak,” is certainly 
distinct from the malak, or precursor, who is to pre¬ 
pare the way before His face. Moreover, He is cer¬ 
tainly identified with “the God of Judgment” of 
ch. II., 17, who is sought, and desired, as the vindicator 
of good, and the punisher of evil. But “the God of 
Judgment” is Jehovah Himself. Therefore, Ha-Adon, 
or Malak, is Jehovah Himself. Yet, He does not ap¬ 
pear to be Jehovah “the Lord of hosts,” since the latter 
says of the former—“Behold he cometh.” There is but 
one possible explanation. It is this. In the One God, 
the One Divine Being, by an inexplicable mystery, 
there is more than one person. In other words, we are 
confronted with the fundamental Christian dogmas of 
the Trinity, and of the Incarnation of the Son as Mes¬ 
siah, in so far as these truths were revealed under the 
Old Covenant. 

In fine, the foregoing sketch of the Messianic Pre¬ 
dictions can hardly be expected to lay the foundation 
for belief in the Divine Sonship of the Messiah in the 
minds of those, who object to the Old Testament Pro¬ 
phecies, because a priori they deny the supernatural al¬ 
together. Besides, it does underlie the charge of utiliz¬ 
ing prophecies difficult to understand. We may freely 
admit that some of the Messianic references above no¬ 
ticed are not very clear. Nevertheless, any such sketch, 
as has been attempted, surely ought to afford food for 
reflection for any orthodox Jew, who may be earnest 
in the pursuit of light on the Messiahship. Likewise, 


88 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


for any conservative Protestant, who may be striving 
to see what the Divine Sonship of the Messiah really 
means. There is absolutely no sign in the Canon of 
Esdras that the Messiah is yet to dwell again upon this 
earth, either temporally, or eternally. Much less, that 
the first coming of the Messiah has been delayed by 
God beyond the time alloted in the older prophecies, 
because of the hitherto insufficiently regenerated state 
of Israel. 

It must be plain that we have in no way impaired 
the apparent strength of those prophecies in the Canon 
of Esdras, which seem to depict the warlike activity of 
“the Ruler out of Jacob,” the New David. Neverthe¬ 
less, the general resultant of this line of Messianic Pre¬ 
diction does not indicate that the Jews as a nation, 
with, or without a capital, are ever to have the chief 
share in the Messianic Salvation. The Gentiles are 
never to be dominated by the Jews. Doubtless, a rem¬ 
nant of Jacob will be saved at the end of time. But, 
the Gentiles are to be supreme in the Messianic King¬ 
dom, which, moreover, is described as inaugurated with 
but few of Juda, and Jerusalem in it. Further, the 
Messianic Salvation is affirmed to be universal de jure, 
but not de facto. Only the elect, “the people” of the 
Lord, participate in it. Jerusalem is a mere symbol of 
the New Sion. Nevertheless, according to the anti¬ 
theses of the metaphorically warlike Messianic utter¬ 
ances, into the Jerusalem of David, and of Solomon, 
did come riding the King and Saviour, the Poor and 
Just One (Zach., IX., 9). But there, in A. D. 29, or 80, 
through the influence of “the council of the malignant,” 
He was maltreated, and put to death. Previously, how¬ 
ever, He filled the Temple with glory by His presence 
(Ag. II., 8). Moreover, because He was the One Shep¬ 
herd, the Priest-King, He instituted a new priesthood, 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 89 


and founded His Kingdom. He was born, and lived 
as Messiah. There is nothing in any of the prophecies 
concerning His first advent, which could even suggest 
the notion of an “Eschatological Messiah.” 

The real character of the Messianic Salvation is al¬ 
ready intimated in the words of Jehovah to the first 
man and woman (Gen. III., 15). It is redemption from 
sin, and transgression, and iniquity. It implies the 
restoration of original justice. It imports the right to 
the supernatural happiness of heaven. It is the appli¬ 
cation to free will under grace of the merits of the 
vicarious sufferings of the Messianic Victim, who be¬ 
came man. The extraordinary attributes, powers, and 
privileges, recorded in the prophecies about the Mes¬ 
siah, force any one, who believes in the inspiration of 
Holy Writ, to acknowledge that He is the Incarnate 
God revealed to Job. The Messiah is declared to be con¬ 
ceived of the Virgin as such, and, hence, without the 
intervention of a human father, He came into this 
world at Bethlehem, but He had pre-existed eternally 
(Mich. II., V.). He had a body fitted to Him, because 
He came to do the will of God (Ps. XXXIX.). He 
came to deliver from sin; and forgiveness of sin, as the 
Jews have always admitted, is a divine prerogative. He 
came, likewise, as “the Light”, as the teacher with 
direct, divine authority.* 7 He also came as the one, 
performing miracles as God in His own name, whom 
the Jews of the timd of Jesus were looking for.^ 8 By 
His own will, He was led as a lamb to the slaughter; 
and by His own power, He arose from the dead (Ps. 
XV.), and ascended into heaven (Ps. LXVII.). He 
sits on the right hand of God, who fights His battles. 
All the angels of God adore Him (Ps. XCVI., 7). In- 


A 7 « ee v. 2 . Isaias, IX, 1 & 2; and Matthew, IV, 13.-17. 

^818. XXXV, and Maas, vol. II, pages 119 et seq.; also John, VII, 31. 




90 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

deed, they have so done, since God brought Him into 
this world (Heb. I., 6). Moreover, they have so done, 
and do so do, because He is God. (Heb. I., 8-12). For 
the same reason, at His second advent, on the Day of 
Doom, all mankind shall also worship Him, either in 
awe and terror, or in charity and joy. 

For many centuries, no one, who admits the exist¬ 
ence of the Person, who is the Messiah, has denied that 
He appeared as Man, and, in some sense, as Saviour. 
The burning question is—how is He likewise God ? But 
the solemn declarations in the Messianic Predictions 
that He is such, also indicate how this is so. Thus, 
He is “Elohim” (Ps. XLIV.). Philologists may adduce 
learned reasons for the plural form of this name of 
God. But, if the Old Testament is the Word of God, 
their reasons are beside the issue. For, it is evident 
that God revealed this plural form of His name for a 
purpose. The only possible purpose, since there is but 
One God, One Divine Being, One Divine Nature, is to 
manifest that there are more Persons than One in the 
Godhead. Yet the Messiah has this name. Conse¬ 
quently, He must be the One God, and one of the Per¬ 
sons of what we now definitely know to be the Trinity. 
He is ‘‘Jehovah” Himself, the Awful, the Ineffable, He 
is “God with us,” “God the Mighty.” He is “the God 
of Judgment” (Mai. II., 17). He is “Jehovah our 
Justice” (Jer. XXIII. and XXXIII). With the last of 
the prophets, as with David, He is “Ha-Adon,” to 
whom Jehovah, as the Father, can speak, because the 
Father and the Son are distinct Persons in the One 
Essence of Jehovah. The Messiah, who is God, as well 
as Man, has been demonstrated to be the Personal 
Messiah, the single individual, who is what He is. There¬ 
fore, the Divine Sonship of the Messiah is the sole key 
to the whole situation. In this fact alone can the Mes- 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 91 

sianic Predictions collectively considered find their 
fundamental principle of correlation. Thus alone can 
all the otherwise divergent phases of the Messiahship, 
all the literal, figurative, and typical aspects of the Mes¬ 
siahship, be assimilated. Since there are Three 
Persons in One God, the First Person is the 
Father of the Messiah, both in the latter's 
eternal generation, and in His generation in 
time through conception in the Virgin. The Divine 
and the Human Natures are hypostatically united in 
the Person of the Son of God, or Second Person of the 
Trinity. This last is the main thing to be insisted on. 
He, who is God and Man, God-Man, is the Son of God, 
the Second Person of the Trinity. Since the advent of 
Christianity, there have been devised many different 
ways of destracting from the strict truth of the Trin¬ 
ity, and of the Incarnation. But certain modern meth¬ 
ods, by their apparently fair, conciliatory, and scholarly 
address, are more insidious than those of old. Hence 
we have reserved till now the direct divine testimony 
that the Messiah is the Son of God, because He is the 
Second Person of the Trinity. But we again revert to 
the standpoint, from which we discussed the prophetic 
utterances on the Personal Messiah in the first chapter 
of this section. We take up a Messianic statement, 
which is certainly ancient, authentic, normal in compo¬ 
sition, and clear beyond all doubt on the point to be 
made in its regard. God used a human mouthpiece in 
enunciating it. At least, its writer represented God as 
making it. This suffices for the present. 

DIRECT DIVINE TESTIMONY THAT THE PER¬ 
SONAL MESSIAH IS THE SON OF GOD, THE 
SECOND PERSON OF THE TRINITY. 

The testimony to the Divine Sonship of the Mes- 


92 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


siah, which was of old attributed to Jehovah HimseT, 
is preserved in. Psalm II., verse 7th. This psalm was 
written by David, as the ancient Jews, and the Jews 
of the time of Jesus unanimously admitted. Thus, in 
Acts, IV., 24-27, we have recorded the traditional be¬ 
lief on this point. This psalm is a united theme on 
one subject. Its message is that the dominion of the 
future Messiah will be universal and absolute, resist¬ 
less and destructive to all, who will not humbly sub¬ 
mit to His rule, but beneficient to all, who trust in Him, 
precisely because He is the Second Person of the Trin¬ 
ity. Thus, the whole psalm hinges on verse 7th; and it 
is entirely Messianic in the literal sense. In verses 1-3, 
the prophet expresses his astonishment at the auda¬ 
city, and the folly of those, who will rebel against the 
rule of Jehovah, and of His Messiah. The tenses of 
the verbs must, of course, be understood of what was 
present to David’s mind, but which regarded the future 
Messiah as such. In this regard, even the 7th verse 
was predictive, inasmuchas it concerned the God-Man 
Messiah to come on this earth. “Why have the Gen¬ 
tiles raged, and the people devised vain things” (i. e., 
plotted vainly). “The kings of the earth stood up” 
(lit. in Hebrew, “planted themselves as a wall” opposed 
to the entrance of the Messiah) “and the princes met 
together” (i. e., according to the Hebrew, they are to 
consult, or, rather, to conspire together) “against the 
Lord” (Jehovah) “and against his Christ.” (here in 
the Hebrew, as, likewise, in Dan. IX., 25, is the word 
“Messias”). “Let us break their bonds asunder: and 
let us cast away their yoke from us.” These parallel, 
metaphorical expressions—are evidently put into the 
mouths of the kings of the Gentiles, and of the princes, 
or “foremost men” of the Jews, to signify their re¬ 
jection of the rule of the Lord, and of His Christ. 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 93 

In verses 4-6, David looks up into heaven, and 
foresees Jehovah, secure in His omnipotence, as it 
were, laughing, and deriding the futil# resistance of 
those kings, and princes, besides being aroused against 
them, because of their rebellion against the Mes¬ 
sianic King to be appointed over the holy mountain. 
“He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them: and 
the Lord shall deride them. Then shall he speak to 
them in his anger, and trouble them in his rage. But I 
am appointed king by him over Sion, his holy moun¬ 
tain”, (here the Douay follows the vulgate, which, in 
turn, follows the Septuagint. But the Masoretic He¬ 
brew, approved by St. Jerome, reads—“But I have 
anointed my King upon Sion my holy mountain.” Thus, 
it makes Jehovah, not the Messiah, speak in this first 
part of verse 6th) “preaching his commandment” (in 
Hebrew, “I shall preach His decree.” Thus, in this 
second part of the verse, the Douay, Vulgate, Septua¬ 
gint, and Hebrew agree in making the Messiah the 
speaker, who will announce the “choc,” or command¬ 
ment, or, better, decree, by which He is to be consti¬ 
tuted the head of the absolute, and universal Messia¬ 
nic Kingdom). 

In verses 7-9, David states the fundamental rea¬ 
son of that divine decree, and, besides, of the right, 
and the power of the Messiah to crush all opposition to 
His dominion. Since the Messiah, who is to come into 
the world, is the Son of God, the Second Person of the 
Trinity, He is competent to hold sw T ay over the whole 
earth, and, also, to destroy His enemies, as easily as a 
potter breaks a useless vessel into pieces. After the 
general analysis of the whole psalm has been given, we 
shall consider the Divine Sonship of verse 7th more 
closely. “The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, 
this day have I begotten thee, Ask of me, and I will 


94 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the 
utmost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou 
shalt rule them with a rod of iron, and shalt break 
them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” 

In verses 10-13, David himself forewarns kings, 
who, by their very position are the supreme judges on 
earth, and, who, moreover, are ordinarily imitated by 
their subjects, to serve Jehovah, and to worship His 
Son, who will punish the evil, just as He will bless the 
good. “And now, 0 ye kings, understand: receive in¬ 
struction, you that judge the earth. Serve the Lord 
with fear,” (because of the terrible, and absolute power, 
which He will confer on His Son made Man) “and 
rejoice unto him with trembling,” (by commingling 
fear with joy in your service of Jehovah). “Embrace 
discipline” (lit. in Hebrew, “Kiss the Son,” not merely 
according to the Oriental fashion of honoring an earth¬ 
ly monarch, but, rather, according to a religious cere¬ 
mony significative of divine worship) “lest at any time 
the Lord be angry” (i. e., lest the Son, the God-Man 
Messiah, become angry, if we prefer the Masoretic text, 
which omits the word “Lord.”) “and you perish from 
the just way. When his wrath shall be kindled in a 
short time,” (i. e., at the end of time, on the judgment 
Day, time being brief compared with eternity.) “blessed 
are all they that trust in him” (i. e., in the Incarnate 
Son. Thus, leaving the word “Lord” out of verse 12th, 
and applying verses 12th and 13th to the Messiah, we 
have strong confirmation, from the text of the psalm 
used by the Jews, of the strictness of the meaning of 
the Divine Sonship of verse 7th. For the Son is wor¬ 
shipped, and trusted in. And to this last point, we may 
recall that, according to the whole Old Testament, trust 
is to be placed in Jehovah alone.) 

In fine, as previously stated, the whole structure of 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 95 

Psalm II. is built around the seventh verse. “Thou art 
my Son.” No Jew, or Gentile, would ever have ques¬ 
tioned the meaning of this phrase, if it had been uttered 
by a human parent to his child. It is literally rendered 
from the original Hebrew, which expresses the rela¬ 
tionship of natural paternity and natural filiation. We 
have taken some pains to refute the heretofore too 
easily tolerated, but erroneous notion that the official 
teaching of the Temple of the time of Jesus represented 
either older, or current Jewish tradition bearing upon 
the Sonship of the Messiah. No comment is needed 
on the preconception against the literal interpretation 
of Ps. II., 7, which has governed the minds of the ortho¬ 
dox Jews, since the time of Jesus. Rationalists have 
attempted metaphorical, and, even, anthropomorphic 
explanations of the words “My Son.” All attempts to 
assimilate them with the language of Homer, or of 
pagan mythologies, may be ignored. But two of the 
attempted metaphorical explanations may merit a pass¬ 
ing notice. The first is that “the Son” is David, to 
whom God said—“I have anointed thee king over Is¬ 
rael,” (II. Kings, XII., 7), as, likewise, to the King of 
Ps. II., 6. David was king on Sion, the holy mountain, 
because thither was brought the ark of God (II. Kings, 
VI., 12 and I. Para. XV., 1, and XVI., 1.). He broke 
the power of opposing kings (II. Kings, VIII., 1-15). 
But this theory that David is “the Son” is contrary 
to the unanimous Jewish tradition that the Messiah 
was to be the son of David, the New David. Besides, if 
David were the author of Ps. II., he could not be its 
subject, since he is evidently treating of some one else 
in verse 2nd. The second of these metaphorical expla¬ 
nations strives to make out that “the Son” is Solomon. 
The latter had it said of him by Jehovah—“I will be to 
him a father, and he shall be to me a son” (II. Kings, 


96 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

VII., 14). But, it has already been pointed out that 
these words were typical of David's “first-born high 
above the kings of earth" (Ps. LXXXVIII., 27). More¬ 
over, although Solomon alone of all the kings of Israel 
was brought in royal splendor to Mt. Sion, neverthe¬ 
less, his reign was one of profound peace, (III. Kings, 
V., 4 and 5; I. Para., XXII., 9). Consequently, if the 
warlike activity of Ps. II. were to be taken literally, 
Solomon as “the Son" is out of the question.* 9 The 
Fathers were unanimous in explaining the phrase— 
“Thou art my son," of the eternal generation of the 
Second Person of the Trinity. They have been accused 
of making this explanation, because they transferred 
their belief in the divinity of Jesus back to what they 
supposed to refer to Him in Ps. II. But, if Jesus is 
really the Son of God, what if they did do so? How¬ 
ever, our analysis of this psalm has demonstrated the 
fact that they had no need to do this. The Divine Son- 
ship of the Messiah is manifested in Ps. II. The Mes- 
siahship of Jesus in the minds of the Fathers does 
not enter into the scope of the present discussion. More¬ 
over, we have seen what David affirmed about the 
divinity of the Messiah in other psalms, particularly in 
Ps. CIX., which is very much like Ps. II. Indeed, if any 
doubt yet were to linger about the direct interpretation 
of the words—“Thou art my son," it ought to be com¬ 
pletely removed by the comparison of this phrase with 
verse first of Ps. CIX. For, the Person addressed by 


49We may also call attention to a metaphorical application of the words 
“My Son” to Jesus. It is made by the so-called “Higher Criticism” 
reading backwards from the Gospels. Upon a theory, which will 
come up later for consideration, of the relation of the Baptism of 
Jesus to the “Messianic Consciousness,” is based a figurative inter¬ 
pretation of the clause—“This is my beloved son” (Matthew, III, 
17 ; Mark, I, 11; Luke, IX, 35. See also II Peter, I, 17). Then, this 
unwarranted interpretation of the words of God about Jesus is 
gratuitously asserted to find its prototype in the words of Jehovah 
to His Christ—“Thou art my son,” Ps. II, 7. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 97 

Jehovah in the former passage is “Ha-Adon” in the 
latter. 

“This day have I begotten thee.” This second 
part of Verse 7th is not distinguished in meaning from 
the first part, by those Jews, and Gentiles, who deny 
that the words “My Son” signify the Second Person 
of the Trinity. However, its meaning has always been 
mooted amongst Catholics. Many, with St. Augustine, 
have understood “this day” to indicate eternity, and 
the begetting to refer to the natural, divine generation 
of the Son. Many, with St. Jerome, have taken “this 
day” to mean a definite point of time, and the beget¬ 
ting to refer to the generation from the Virgin. Many, 
with St. Hilary, have taken the whole phrase to sig¬ 
nify the metaphorical generation, or manifestation 
of the eternal generation of the Son through His Re¬ 
surrection. Some, like Bellarmine, have imagined that 
all three senses are literally contained in it. However, 
the two clauses,—“Thou art my son,” and “this day 
have I begotten thee,” are parallel. It is a parallelism 
of repetition of meaning under different verbal ves¬ 
tures. The verb “yalad” means precisely “I have be¬ 
gotten.” Since ordinary generation from a human 
father and mother is not to be considered, it means 
that, I, God, the First Person of the Trinity, am the 
Father as the sole and eternal generator. “Ha-yom” 
is literally “the day.” It could mean “this day,” this 
particular point of time. If it were used adverbially, 
it could mean “today,” the “hodie” of the Vulgate. In 
each case, its meaning is to be determined from the 
context of the passage, in which it may be found. In 
the present instance, the character of the parallelism 
of the two clauses of verse 7th demands that it be in¬ 
terpreted as “the ever-present.” In other words, “the 
day,” “this day” of the Douay, means “from eternity.” 


98 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

Since the whole structure of Ps. II. presupposes that 
the Person, addressed by Jehovah, in verse 7th, is 
already the Messiah as such, and, consequently, God In¬ 
carnate; and since the very reason of Jehovah’s ad¬ 
dress is the manifestation of the cause of the absolute, 
and divine power of the Messianic King, it must be 
held that, in the clause—“This day have I begotten 
thee,” as well as in the clause—“Thou art my son,” 
there is question of the eternal generation of the Son, 
not of His generation in time from the Virgin. In a 
secondary, and metaphorical, but not in the primary, 
and literal sense, His Resurrection 50 is implied in the 
second clause, and fits in with the worship, and the 
trust due to Him in His glory. However, whatever 
interpretation of the words—“This day have I begot¬ 
ten thee” be adopted, all Catholics admit that it at 
least presupposes the natural, divine filiation, which 
all Catholics, without any reservation whatsoever, af¬ 
firm to be explicitly stated in the words—“Thou art 
my son.” This is amply sufficient for our purposes. 51 

In fine David represented Jehovah as saying that 
the Person, who became Messiah at His Incarnation, 
and who suffered in order to found His universal, and 
spiritual Kingdom, is the Eternal Son of God. All the 
other statements in the Canon of Esdras, which can 
certainly be shown to depict the Personal Messiah as 
the God-Man, should be allowed by any unprejudiced 
unbeliever to be correlated with this assertion of Jeho¬ 
vah, and explained accordingly. At least, those Mes¬ 
sianic Predictions, which were discussed in the pre¬ 
vious chapter, must be conjoined with it, and under¬ 
stood in its light. Of course, the Divine Sonship of the 
Messiah is not a fact, which immediately can come un- 

50Acts, XIII, 33; Rom. I, 4 ; I. Cor. XV, 25 ; Matthew, XXVIII, 18. 

.UOn Ps. II, see Bellarmine, pages 12 et seq.; Corluy, vol. II, page 152 et 
seq.; Maas, vol. I, pages 161 et seq. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 99 

der the Knowledge derived from sense-perception. 
Nevertheless, it can be proven that God testified to it 
through the prophets. We have accepted, as the su¬ 
preme test of the supernaturalness of our selected 
prophecies, the possibility of demonstrating their ful¬ 
fillment. If the Divine Sonship of the Messiah be es¬ 
sentially connected with what we can verify in His re¬ 
gard, we have the right, and the duty to believe, and 
to proclaim that He is the Second Person of the Trinity, 
in whom the Divine Nature, and the Human Nature are 
hypostatically united. 


CHAPTER III. 


Third Point of the Minor Premise. 
Fulfillment of the Messianic 
Predictions in Jesus. 


PERSISTENT REJECTION BY THE ORTHODOX 

JEWS OF JESUS AS THE MAN-MESSIAH. 

The rabbinical Jews of the Christian Era have al¬ 
ways clung to their hope of the Messiah. It is true 
that, shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem, Hil- 
lel the Younger, the president of the Sanhedrim, de¬ 
nied that Israel expected a Messiah. This, however, 
was an individual expression of despair. For, Hillel 
felt that the time foretold by the prophets as the epoch 
of the Messiah had elapsed. Having denied the Mes- 
siahship of Jesus, he saw no other course open, except¬ 
ing the one, which he took. 2 During the century, which 
followed after the destruction of Jerusalem, certain 
rabbis vainly strove to defend the Jewish expectation 
of the Messiah against the arguments in favor of the 
claims of Jesus to the Messiahship, which were ad¬ 
vanced by the Christians of the East. Some of these 
rabbis 2 asserted that it could be held that the Messiah 
had not yet come, because, according to their theory, 
the prophets had not defined the exact period of His 


iSee Perrone, tome II, vol. 0, paire 11. 
SPerrone loc. cit., pages 2l & 22 . 






Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 101 

appearance in the world. But this interpretation of the 
Messianic Predictions was not acceptable, even to the 
Jews themselves, because it lacked the support of an¬ 
terior tradition. Others of these rabbis 3 put forth the 
hypothesis that the Messianic Predictions, while ap¬ 
parently absolute in their statements, were in reality 
conditional on the moral status of Israel at the period 
otherwise alloted to the advent of the Messiah; and, 
consequently, that His coming had been retarded by 
Jehovah, because of the hitherto sinful, and unworthy 
conduct of the nation. This hypothesis, however, failed 
to explain how the Messianic Salvation regarded the 
Gentiles, rather than the Jews, until the time came, 
when the remnant of Juda, and Jerusalem was to be 
saved. Hence, in general, the rabbinical, and orthodox 
Jews, from the time of Jesus down to the present day, 
have contented themselves with affirming that the pe¬ 
riod of the Messiah was definitely, and unconditionally 
foretold by the prophets; but, nevertheless, it has not 
yet been reached. Thus, even at present day, despite 
the remonstrances of the Reformed Jews, the strait¬ 
laced Jews of the synagogues, continue in their ances¬ 
tral hope of the Man-Messiah of the official teaching 
of the Temple of the time of Jesus. They persist, after 
the fashion of their forefathers, but with somewhat 
greater caution, and secrecy, in repeating the calum¬ 
nies, and blasphemies against Our Blessed Lord, which 
were originally in the unexpurgated Talmud/' Cen¬ 
turies have not cooled off the hatred, and the slanderous 
spite, with which He is rejected as Messiah, as the 
Jews understand the word. 


SPerrone, loc. cit., page 23. 
^Fillion, op. cit., pages 269 & 270. 



102 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


MODERN RATIONALISTS ON THE MESSIAHSHIP 
OF JESUS. 

According to one of the modern rationalistic 
schools, Jesus never pretended to be the Messiah in 
any sense, even in that of Man-Messiah. At the head 
of this school may be placed Max Maurenbrecher, pro¬ 
fessor at Erlangen. According to his theory,- 5 Jesus 
was in fact a simple Jewish teacher, or doctor of the 
Law, who was satisfied with the title of “Son of Man.” 
Strange to say, Maurenbrecher assumes that this title 
had nothing in common with that of Messiah. It is 
equally strange that he assumes that Jesus is not the 
founder of Christianity, which he endeavors to trace 
back to ancient, oriental notions which had infiltrated 
into the Jewish religion. He holds that Jesus, if He 
had lived in this age,would have been a kind of social¬ 
ist. He also holds that the apostles imagined the Re¬ 
surrection, and, consequently, invented the Messiah- 
ship of Jesus. However, most of the learned, free- 
thinking students of the Bible are not willing to go to 
the length of denying that Jesus is the Man-Messiah. 
They see no harm in conceding so much. But all of 
them, whether they call themselves Christians, or not, 
unite in denying that He is the God-Man Messiah, the 
Incarnate Son of God. Thus, in order to explain away 
the declarations of Divine Messiahship by Jesus, the 
well-known critic, William Wrede, 6 has emphasized the 
idea of the “Messianic Secret.” He says that Jesus 
never, either publicly, or privately, called Himself the 
God-Man Messiah. This fact was very embarrassing 
to those, who wrote the Gospels, especially that of St. 
Mark, and who undoubtedly believed Him to be such. 
Their belief, however, was subsequent to their convic- 

5“Von Nazareth nach Golgotha,” etc., Berlin, 1909, pages 151 et seq. See 
Fillion, pages 254 et seq. 

6“Das Messiasgeheimniss in den Evangelien” Gottingen, 1901. See Lepin, 
page 131. Also Fillion, page 139, and passim. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 103 

tion of His Resurrection, and was founded upon it. 
If, however, He became Messiah by His Resurrection, 
He must have been the Messiah in expectation, but 
secretly, also during H^s lifetime on earth. Hence, it 
behooved the composers of the Gospels to likewise de¬ 
pict this “Messianic Secret” in some manner. Thus, 
came about those minglings of light and darkness, of 
open statements and reservations concerning the Mes- 
siahship, which were posthumous evolutions of primi¬ 
tive Christianity. However, the majority of the schol¬ 
ars in question admit outright the fact of the declara¬ 
tions of Divine Messiahship by Jesus; which they un¬ 
dertake to interpret in some superhuman, but not 
strictly divine sense. One favorite explanation is that 
of the “Eschatological Messiahship.” Jesus is said to 
have united Himself so closely to the Heavenly Father, 
because of His persuasion of His second, and trium¬ 
phant coming, when, with the irresistable assistance of 
Jehovah, He is to institute the universal, and everlast¬ 
ing New Sion. Some, who adopt this explanation, also 
add that Jesus borrowed these notions of His ultimate 
success from the Apocalypse of Esdras, and from other 
apocrypha of the Old Testament. 7 As a working hypo¬ 
thesis, this explanation has been defended by Alfred 
Loisy, 8 the hierophant of “Modernism.” He says that 
Jesus 9 declared Himself the Messiah, but only such. 
In His mind, the divinity of the Messiah merely meant 
the “providential function,” which He was destined to 
exercise on the Kingdom of Heaven, at His final ad¬ 
vent. Moreover, the Divine Messiahship and the Di¬ 
vine Sonship were equivalent to Jesus, but precisely 
because He was chosen by God as the sole agent in the 


7 Fillion, pages 277 et seq., and Lepin, pages 174 et seq. 

8Loisy, “The Gospel and the Church?’ Eng. transl., 1908, pages 101-102. 
See Fillion, pages 217 of seq. 

9Loisy, op. cit., pages 102-108. See Lepin, pages 280 et seq. 



104 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

establishment of the Eschatological, Messianic King¬ 
dom. Thus, He believed Himself the Son of God, be¬ 
cause He believed Himself the Messiah. He believed 
Himself the Messiah, because He was to be the King 
of the New Jerusalem. But, since the New Jerusalem 
was not to be founded until after His death, Jesus, 
during His lifetime on earth, was not yet properly Mes¬ 
siah. At most, He was then Messiah in a preliminary 
sense only. His consciousness of His Messiahship, or 
of its synonyme, the Divine Sonship, in no wise in¬ 
cluded the Incarnation of the Second Person of the 
Trinity now proposed in the Gospels. The transition 
from the metaphorical divinity; of which Jesus was 
cognizant, to the Incarnation of the Word, as stated, es¬ 
pecially, in the Gospel of St. John, was the i*esult of 
two influences, of which one was the employment of 
Greek words to express the Messiahship, while the 
other was the influx of the Neo-Platonic Philosophy 
of Gentile converts. 10 Nevertheless, it must be con¬ 
ceded that there was “a species of intimate and inef¬ 
fable permeation of the Man-Christ by God, as hap¬ 
pened at the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Jesus, 
when receiving Baptismand, consequently, there was 
a conviction of relationship, and union with God in 
Jesus, which was unique in the history of the world. 11 
But, while Jesus was aware of this kind of sonship be¬ 
fore He began to preach, He practised reserve in its 
manifestation, for the reason that He was awaiting 
the Father's pleasure in fulfilling the promise of es¬ 
tablishing the Messianic Kingdom. Hence, He did not 
openly, and absolutely acknowledge His Messiahship, 
until brought befor.e the Sanhedrim at His last hour on 
earth. However, He then plainly affirmed that “the 


lOLoisy, op. cit., pages 192 et seq. & 214. 

llLoisy, “Autour d’un petit livre,” pages 117, 134, 155. “Le Quatr 

Evang.,” page 38. 




Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 105 

Son of Man” was yet to appear with the divine charac¬ 
teristics of the Messianic King.* 2 

However, if the declarations of Jesus about His 
Divine Messiahship are allowed to rest as authentic, 
and if He be presumed to be truthful, how can His 
“Messianic Consciousness,” even if minimized to that 
of the eschatological office of “the Vicar of God,” be 
supposed to have developed psychologically? This is 
the great problem of the whole aggregation of more 
conservative rationalists. Honestly, and frankly put, 
the question is this—How did Jesus deceive Himself 
into the belief, which He expressed in the terms of the 
God-Man Messiahship? Usually, these critics agree 
with Adolph Harnack in saying that “an inner event, 
which Jesus experienced at his baptism, was, in view 
of the oldest tradition, the foundation of His Messianic 
Consciousness.” 13 Some, however, with Loisy, 1 * claim 
that this consciousness was determined, but not origin¬ 
ated at the Baptism of Jesus. They say that the ac¬ 
count of the Baptism was symbolical, but, nevertheless, 
was likewise explanatory of a decisive moment in the 
life of Jesus. All, however, say with Harnack that an 
antecedent notion of some kind of exceptional, and 
superhuman filiation was converted in the mind of 
Jesus into the concept of Divine Messiahship. While 
differing somewhat on the details, all assign Him a 
purely human parentage, but with an environment of 
great piety, and of extraordinary interest in the Mes¬ 
siah of the prophecies, and of the Galilean synagogues. 
Born in such surroundings, and naturally reflective, 
and introspective, His dawning intelligence worked over 
His vocation in the world, and over His capabilities of 


12Loisy, “Les Evang. Synopt,” Paris, 1907 & 1908, vol. I, pages 192, 212 
& 213, 231 & 232, 242. Lepin, pages 473 et seq. 

ZSHarnack. “What Is Christianity,” Eng. transl., London, 1896, page 149. 
Z^Lois.v, “The Gospel and the Church,” page 105 ; “Les Evang. Synopt.” 
vol. I, page 408. 



106 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

doing some good for Israel. As He grew older, in addi¬ 
tion to His mental qualifications, He evinced a beauti¬ 
ful, and loving disposition. Thus, He alone, of all the 
Jews, came to look upon God, not as the Awful Jehovah, 
but as the Heavenly Father, with whom His own spirit 
was in constant communication. Thus, He persuaded 
Himself that the Father dwelt in Him, and permeated 
His very being. In this way, after some profound 
movement of His soul, at the occasion of His Baptism, 
which, at least, settled His conviction that He was to 
be the Saviour, the Messiah, He became prepared to ac¬ 
cept all the consequences of preaching the Kingdom of 
Heaven. During the stress of the circumstances of 
His mission, He acquired the beliefs of failure and 
death in this life, but of success at His second advent. 
Yet, despite the erroneous conclusions, at which He 
arrived, and in which He died, He was normal, sane, 
the perfection of moral goodness, and the greatest 
teacher of the love of God and of man. 15 

JESUS HIMSELF ON HIS MESSIAHSHIP. HIS DE¬ 
CLARATIONS AND USE OF THE PROPHECY- 
ARGUMENT. 

The class of critics, which we have been consider¬ 
ing, admits that Jesus declared Himself the God-Man 
Messiah. Nevertheless, it may be well to dilate on the 
fact that He did so, both privately and publicly, besides 
likewise making use of the Prophecy-Argument. What 
follows, however, is not intended as a scientific exposi¬ 
tion of the authenticity, and of the meaning of the 
declarations of Jesus. Such exposition will be afforded 
later. Here, the historicity of the Gospels is presumed, 


15See Lepin, pages 139 et seq.; 215 et seq.; 222 et seq.; 233 & 234 ; and 
479 et seq. Also Fillion, 194 et seq.; 211-213 ; 217 et seq.; 223-225, 
and passim. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 107 

since the present stage of our course of reasoning does 
not absolutely demand the introduction of what Jesus 
said about His Messiahship. Moreover, the meaning of 
what He said on that point will be sufficiently set forth 
here to effect what is aimed at at this juncture. Shortly 
after the Baptism, and the Temptation, Nathaniel said 
to Jesus,—“Rabbi thou art the Son of God, thou art 
the King of Israel.” Nathaniel evidently meant that 
He was the Messiah, “of whom Moses in the law, and 
the prophets did write.” Jesus accepted this title. For 
He said,—“Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under 
the fig-tree, thou believest: greater things than these 
shalt thou see. And he saith to him: Amen, amen I 
say to You, you shall see the heaven opened, and the 
angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son 
of Man.” (John, I., 45-51.) At the beginning of the 
second year of His Public Life, at Jacob’s Well in Sa¬ 
maria, Our Blessed Lord conversed with the Sama¬ 
ritan woman. “The woman saith to him: I know that 
the Messias cometh (who is called Christ): therefore 
when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith 
to her: I am he, who am speaking with thee.” 16 On the 
occasion of the Second Pasch, He made solemn, and 
public use of the Prophecy-Argument. “Search the 
Scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlast¬ 
ing : and the same are they that give testimony of me. 
And you will not come to me that you may have life 

. Iam come in the name of my Father, and you 

receive me not. Think not that I will accuse you 

to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, Moses, 
in whom you trust. For if you did believe Moses, you 
would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me.” 17 
This reasoning was in accordance with what He added, 


26John, IV, 1-43. See Didon, “Jesus Christ,” Eng. transl., Philadelphia, 
1891, vol. I, pages 210 et seq.; Le Camus, vol. I, pages 315 et seq. 
27John, V, 39-47. Le Camus, vol. I, pages 242 & 243. 





108 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

perhaps a month later, in the Sermon on the Mount. 
“Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or 
the prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” 
(Matthew, V., 17). In June, after the raising from the 
dead of the widow's son, at Naim, He made the follow¬ 
ing answer to the two disciples sent by John the Bap¬ 
tist from his prison. “Go and relate to John what you 
have heard and seen. The blind see, the lame walk, 
the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise 
again, the poor have the gospel preached to them.” 18 

In this indirect, but sufficient answer, Our Blessed 
Lord proclaimed Himself the Messiah, by pointing out 
that His works were the fulfillment of the words of 
Isaias, XXXV. In September, He entered the syna¬ 
gogue, at Nazareth, on the Sabbath, and read from Is. 
LXI., 1 and 2, about the functions of the Messiah, 
the Anointed of the Lord. “And when he had folded 
the book, he restored it to the minister, and sat down. 
And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on 
him. And he began to say to them: This day is fulfilled 
this scripture in your ears.” 19 His hearers, although 
they understood the application made of this prophecy 
by Our Blessed Lord to Himself, were not, however, 
impressed by the truth of His words. In July, after 
the Third Pasch, near Caesarea-Philippi, He inquired 
of His disciples 20 “Whom do men say that the son of 
man is?” Having heard their response, He inquired 
further—“But whom do you say that I am? Simon 
Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of 
the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: 
Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona: because flesh and 
blood hath not revealed 21 it to thee, but my Father, 


JSMatthew, XI, 2-6; Luke, VII, 19-23. 

19Luke, IV, 16-30. Le Camus, vol. 1, pages 350 et seq. 

20Matthew, XVI, 13-17. Le Camus, vol. II, pages 144 et seq 
2JDidon, vol. I, pages 463 & 464 ; Lepin, pages 167, 374 & 375. See Batif- 
fol, “Primitive Christianity,” Eng. transl., New York, 1911, pages 
75 et seq. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 109 

who is in heaven.” This passage is striking, and con¬ 
clusive by itself. No other declaration of the Messiah- 
ship of the God-Man by Jesus would be needed. More¬ 
over, what immediately follows it, proves that Jesus 
prepared for the continuance of his Kingdom, or 
Church, under a visible head, until the end of time. 
The bearing of this fact upon the previously noted 
theory of the merely “Eschatological Messiahship” 
needs no comment. “And I say to thee: That thou art 
Peter: and upon this rock I will build my church, and 
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I 
will give to thee the keys of heaven. And whatsoever 
thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in 
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it 
shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matthew XVI., 18 
and 19). The result is that Harnack and his school 
see no other alternative but to gratuitously deny the 
authenticity of Matthew, XVI., 16-19; and to assert 
that the original, and true version has been preserved 
in Mark, VIII., 27-29, and Luke, IX., 18-20. 

On the last, and great day of the Feast of the 
Tabernacles in September, “Jesus stood and cried, say¬ 
ing ; If any man thirst, let him come to me, and drink. 
He that believeth in me, as the scripture saith, Out of 
his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” (John, VII., 
37 and 38). This was a public proclamation that He 
was the Saviour, or Messiah. Every day at dawn, dur¬ 
ing the octave of this feast, a priest, accompanied by a 
procession of people, went down to the Fountain of 
Siloe, and drew from it three measures of water in a 
golden vase. Then, to the music of trumpets, and cym¬ 
bals, all returned with him to the Temple. While he 
poured the water on the altar, Levites chanted—“You 
shall draw waters with joy from the fountains of the 
Saviour.” Is. XII., 3. It was immediately after this 


110 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


ceremony, that Jesus made His proclamation “of the 
spirit which they should receive, who believed in him.” 
(John VII., 39). The next day, He “spoke to them 
saying: I am the light of the world: He that followeth 
me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light 
of life. The Pharisees therefore said to him: Thou 
givest testimony of thyself: thy testimony is not true. 
Jesus answered, and said to them: Although I give tes¬ 
timony of myself, my testimony is true; for I know 

whence I came, and whither I go. I am one that 

give testimony of myself: and the Father that sent me 
giveth testimony of me. They said therefore to him; 
Where is thy Father? Jesus answered: Neither me 
do you know, nor my Father; “if you did know me, 
perhaps you would know my Father also.” (John, 
VIII., 12-19). The importance of these declarations of 
Our Blessed Lord are evident. They, as it were, soli¬ 
dify the reasoning of the Prophecy-Argument. It is 
plain that Jesus asserts that God, Jehovah, is His 
Father. It is also plain that He asserts that God, the 
Father, testifies for His Son. The precise character of 
His Father's testimony is not stated. But the whole 
context of chapters, Vllth, and VUIth of St. John's 
Gospel shows that the Father's testimony includes the 
Messianic Predictions of the prophets, particularly of 
Moses. 

Towards the end of Septmber, Our Blessed Lord 
uttered the parable of the good shepherd (John, X., 
1-21). In this common, Jewish method of teaching by 
analogy, and illustration, He applied to Himself the 
Messianic Predictions in Ezechiel, XXXIV., and 
XXXII., and in Zacharias, XIII. Thus, He proclaimed 
Himself the door, by which alone men go to the Father. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 111 

He is the Saviour. By His grace alone men enter the 
Kingdom. By his merits alone, is there accession to 
heaven. Moreover, in accordance with Isaias, LIII., 
and Psalm XXI., He lays down His life by His own 
will, and power, despite the apparent success of the 
“council of the malignant” (Wisdom, II.). For, He is 
the Son of God, doing the will of His Father, because 
He and the Father love each other. Further, He has 
the power, which is necessarily divine, of taking up 
His life again in His Resurrection. 21 ® It is vain for 
Loisy, and others to say that He learned of His suffer¬ 
ing, and death by a mere human prevision of what 
must follow, if He persisted in defying the chief priests, 
ancients, scribes, and Pharisees in their citadel of Jeru¬ 
salem. He foretold His Passion to His disciples just 
after the Transfiguration (Luke, IX., 44 and 45; Mark, 
IX., 30 and 31: Matthew, XVII., 21 and 22). He did 
the same after the Confession of St. Peter, (Matthew, 
XVI., 21-28; Mark, VIII., 31-39; Luke, IX., 22-27). 
What He said, at Capharnaum, in September after the 
Second Pasch, about the sin against the Holy Ghost, 
(Matthew, XII., 31-37; Mark, III., 28-30) in the scribes 
and the Pharisees, shows that He then knew what was 
to happen to Him at their hands. So, likewise, He ex¬ 
hibited similar knowledge in the parable of the bride¬ 
groom, uttered at Capharnaum, just before the Sec¬ 
ond Pasch. (Matthew, IX., 15 ; Mark, II., 19 and 20; 
Luke, V., 34 and 35.) In fact, but obscurely, He ex¬ 
hibited it at the First Pasch, in the Temple, by His 
reference to the destruction of the Temple of His Body, 
and to His subsequent Resurrection. In fine, His fore 
knowledge of the details of what He was to suffer from 


&foSee Le Camus, vol. II, pages 270 et seq. 



112 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

the future malice of free agents could not have been 
the result of mere human conjecture. 

“And it was the feast of the dedication at Jeru¬ 
salem: and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the 
temple, in Solomon’s porch. The Jews therefore came 
round about him, and said to him: How long dost thou 
hold our souls in suspense ? If thou be the Christ, tell 
us plainly.” (John, X., 22-24.) Here was an official 
interrogation, although made in bad faith, and in the 
effort to ensnare Him in His speech. The Gospel of St. 
John, being the bane of rationalistic critics, is usually 
blotted out, as far as the credibility of its account of 
the discourses of Jesus is concerned. However, these 
critics hesitate over the complete expurgation of the 
passage from St. John, which we are to look at here, 
precisely because they think that they can find the 
original notion of Jesus in a metaphorically Divine Mes- 
siahship, apparently defended by Him in verses 34-36. 
Nevertheless, in so far as they admit the historicity of 
the relation of the words of Jesus and of the conduct 
of “the Jews,” or emissaries of the Sanhedrim, such 
critics afforded their own refutation. Realizing the 
spirit prompting the question asked of Him, “Jesus an¬ 
swered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the 
works that I do in the name of my Father, they give 
testimony of me.” (v. 25). No more forcible, and 
logical answer could have been given. If His Father 
permitted Him to do works requiring Divine Omnipo¬ 
tence for their accomplishment; and to do such works 
in confirmation of the truth of His declarations about 
Himself, the Father necessarily testified to the Divine 
Sonship of His Christ. Then, after affirming His 
power, arising from His Divine Sonship, to give life 
everlasting to those, who are His sheep. He subjoined 
—“I and the Father are one” (v. 30). This was an 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 113 

asseveration that the Son and the Father are two dis¬ 
tinct persons in the One God. “The Jews then took 
up stones to stone him” (v. 31). Moreover, they them¬ 
selves assigned the reason of their action. “For a good 
work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy: and be¬ 
cause that thou, being a man, makest thyself God” (v. 
33). Could any assertion be plainer? They knew that 
He claimed to be God. They refused to believe it, 
and were ready to kill him. They could not deny the 
fact of His miracles; but, in their perversity, they 
attributed those miracles to Beelzebub. Yet, they were 
good works, and they were performed in confirmation 
of His statements of His Divine Sonship. Hence, logic¬ 
ally, they should have said that they were about to 
stone Him for His works, as well as for His words. 
For, if He had falsely called God to witness to the truth 
of His words, He must likewise have falsely assumed 
power from the Father to do what seemed to be divine 
deeds. However, seeing Jesus on the point of further 
utterance, they paused, awaiting a possible explanation 
satisfactory to themselves. Yet, He did not add that 
He was not God, and had never pretended to be God. 
He led them on, by an argumentum ad hominem, to 
listen again to what He had said previously. “Is it 
not written in your law: I said you are Gods? If he 
called them Gods, to whom the word of God was spoken, 
and the scripture cannot be broken; Do you say of him 
whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the 
world; thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son 
of God?” (v. 34-36). Jesus used the words “law”, 
and “scripture” here, in a general sense, as designating 
all the inspired writings, which served for the intellec¬ 
tual, and moral guidance of the Jews. The particular 
reference was to Psalm LXXXI., 6. His argument was 
that, on the authority of the “law”, He could, even if 


114 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

not God, attribute to Himself without blasphemy the 
name of God. For, if Asaph could call the judges of 
Israel “gods”, how much more rightly could the Mes¬ 
siah, the Anointed of God, take to Himself the name 
of God. For, the Messiah had been “sanctified and 
sent into the world” by the Father. Consequently, be¬ 
fore coming into the world, He had conferred with the 
Father, and had accepted the mission of the Redemp¬ 
tion. Therefore, before coming into the world, He had 
existed as the Son. There is no other possible inter¬ 
pretation of the 36th verse. Jesus then returned to 
His original declarations. “If I do not the works of 
my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though you will 
not believe me, believe the works: that you may know 
and believe that the Father is in me, and I am in the 
Father.” (v. 37 and 38). Apart from everything else, 
there can be no doubt about the final impression left on 
the minds of “the Jews” by this discourse of Jesus. 
For, “they sought therefore to take him: and he es¬ 
caped out of their hands” (v. 39). Certainly, if He 
had mitigated His claim down to a merely metaphorical 
Divine Messiahship, this would not have happened, 
since “the Jews” had not yet perfected their plans for 
His secret capture. 22 

On Wednesday before the Crucifixion, Our Blessed 
Lord publicly, solemnly, and voluntarily professed Him¬ 
self “Ha-Adon” of Psalm CIX. He did this in the 
Temple, and in an address to the Pharisees themselves, 
the most active, and implacable members of the “coun¬ 
cil of the malignant.” It is strange that the critics 
pass so lightly over this plain, and strong declaration 
that He is the God-Man Messiah, the Second Person 
of the Trinity, who became Incarnate as the Messianic 
Priest-King. It is remarkable also that so little atten- 


22See Le Camus, vol. II, pages 346-348. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 115 

tion is paid to the bearing of this declaration upon His 
subsequent statements about “the Son of Man” before 
Caiphas, and before the Sanhedrim, “What think you 
of Christ? Whose son is he?” They say to him, 
David's. He saith to them: How then doth David in 
spirit call him Lord, saying: The Lord said to my Lord: 
sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy 
footstool? If David then called him Lord, how is he 
his son?” 23 “No man was able to answer.” Yet, all 
understood that, according to some meaning underly¬ 
ing Psalm CIX., Jesus, in some way, identified Him¬ 
self with God. For, they were of those, who had 
framed the official teaching of the Temple. According 
to that teaching, the Messiah was “the Son of David.” 
In this regard, that teaching accorded with the Mes¬ 
sianic Predictions. Moreover, they knew well that Je¬ 
sus had taken to Himself this Messianic title of “Son 
of David.” In that name, Jesus had performed mira¬ 
cles. Thus, as “Son of David”, He had cured the two 
blind men at Capharnaum ; 2 * He had driven the devil 
out of the daughter of the woman of Canaan ; 25 and He 
had given sight to the blind man at the entrance of 
Jericho. 26 Above all, as “Son of David,” (Matthew, 
XXL, 9) He had made His triumphal entry into Jeru¬ 
salem. 27 Therefore, they understood Jesus to claim the 
divinity of Ha-Adon. 

The response of Jesus to Caiphas, which is ad¬ 
mitted to be authentic by many rationalistic critics, is 
found in St. Mark, XIV., 60-64. The high-priest asked 
—“Art thou the Christ, the Son of the blessed (God) ? 
And Jesus said to him: I am. And you shall see the son 
of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, 

SJMatthew, XXIT. 41-46; Mark, XII, 35-37; Luke, XX, 41-44. 

2/,Matthew, IX, 27-31. 

25Matthew, XV, 21-28; Mark, VII, 24-31. 

2GLuke, XVIII, 35-43. 

27Matthew, XXI, 1-9; Mark, XI, 1-7; Luke, XIX, 29-38; John. XII, 36- 
38. Also Le Camus, vol. Ill, pages 87-90. 



116 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

and coming with the clouds of heaven.” It is said that 
the answer of Jesus, who claimed to be no more than 
“the Son of Man,” shows that the high-priest did not 
refer in his question to such sonship, as would be com¬ 
petent to the Second Person of the Trinity. But, if by 
the title of “Son of Man,” Jesus merely intended to 
confess Himself an ordinary human individual, or, even, 
an eschatological, and metaphorically divine Messiah, 
why did the high-priest accuse Him of blasphemy? 
Why did the assembly judge Him deserving of death? 
The issue was a religious one. Jesus asserted that God 
was His Father. His hearers realized that then and 
there, but in some unfathomable manner, He claimed 
divinity. “Art thou the Christ, the son of the blessed 
(God) ?” “I am.” The subsequently added title of “the 
Son of Man,” which Jesus had used, throughout His 
public ministry, as a personal appellation, detracted 
nothing in their ears from His claim of Divine Sonship. 
They knew that He had made it equivalent to the Mes¬ 
sianic name of “Son of David;” while, on the previous 
Wednesday, He had proven that, despite that modest 
name, He was in reality “Ha-Adon.” His choice of the 
appellation of “the Son of Man” was doubtless based on 
Daniel, VII., 13. In His answer to Caiphas, the refer¬ 
ence to that passage is certain. So, likewise, in His 
declarations, just before the Transfiguration, that “the 
son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with 
his angels”; and that “he that shall be ashamed of me, 
and of my words, of him the son of man shall be 
ashamed, when he shall come in his majesty, and in 
that of his Father, and of the holy angels”; 28 and, 
finally, in the description, which He, on the Wednes¬ 
day of Holy Week, gave of Himself at the Last Judg¬ 
ment. 29 Moreover, what follows that description in St. 


28Matthew, XVI, 24-28; Mark, VIII, 34-39; Luke, IX. 23-27. 
2.9Matthew, XXV, 31. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 117 

Matthew about the reward to the good, and the punish¬ 
ment of the wicked so evidently pre-supposes the earth¬ 
ly ministry of the Messiah, that it would suffice in it¬ 
self to refute the theory of the mere “Eschatological 
Messiahship.” Further, the divine power, and author¬ 
ity, which the “Son of Man” is to have at the Last 
Judgment, was previously exercised by Him, while 
on earth. Thus, “the Son of Man hath power on earth 
to forgive sins” ; 30 and “the Son of Man is lord even of 
the sabbath”. 31 Therefore, even in St. Mark, XIV., 60- 
64, taken by itself, the title of “Son of Man” 32 was 
neither meant, nor understood to be a disclaiming of 
eternal, Divine Sonship. Besides, it is only justice 
chat all the accounts of the answers of Jesus to Caiphas* 
and to the Sanhedrim should be correlated, and judged 
of together. The resultant of this procedure is the 
conclusion, that, even apart from what He said as 
“Son of Man”, He directly declared Himself the Second 
Person of the Trinity, 

Moreover, His use of the Prophecy-Argument did 
not terminate with His violent death. Although the 
rationalistic critics do not admit the fact of the Resur¬ 
rection, we shall, nevertheless, recall His applications 
of the Messianic Predictions made to Himself after 
that event. On the road to Emmaus, He said to the 
two disciples—“O foolish, and slow of heart to believe 
in all things which the prophets have spoken. Ought 
not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter 
into his glory. And beginning at Moses and all the 
prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, 
the things that were concerning him.” (Luke, XXIV., 
25-27). At Jerusalem, just before His Ascension, He 


SOMatthew, IX, 1*8; Mark, II, 1-12; Luke V, 17-26. 

SlMatthew, XII, 1-8; Mark, II, 23-28; Luke, VI, 1-5. See also Didon, 
vol. I. pages 314-316. 

S2See Lepin, pages 54, 93-95, 130, 157 et seq., 196 & 197. 



118 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

said to the eleven,—“These are the words, which I 
spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things 
must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of 
Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concern¬ 
ing me. Then he opened their understanding, that they 
might understand the scriptures.” 33 

In fine, it has been demonstrated that Jesus, both 
privately, and publicly declared Himself the God-Man 
Messiah, besides making use of the Prophecy-Argu¬ 
ment. We are told by the critics, who admit the fact of 
these declarations that Jesus was truthful. Therefore, 
what Jesus said, He believed to be true. We are *dso 
told that He was sane, and, even wise, and learned in 
the Scriptures, and the greatest of all teachers of the 
religion of the love of God, and of man. But, if He 
were sane, how could He deceive Himself into the belief 
that He was the God-Man? “Humanum est errare.” 
A sane man can, and does make errors of judgment, 
and mistakes of conduct. But no sane man could be¬ 
lieve Himself to be God made flesh, and act the part. 
If a man supposed to be sincere, were to so persuade 
himself, and call on others to acknowledge such a claim, 
he would be necessarily treated as religiously insane. 
If he were not sincere, he should be imprisoned, as the 
most dangerous kind of an impostor upon the simple- 
minded, and credulous. Therefore, since Jesus was 
sane, as well as truthful, despite the extraordinary, and 
exceptional import of His declarations about Himself, 
nothing logically remains but to admit that He did not 
deceive Himself, any more than His hearers. There¬ 
fore, it should be admitted that He is the Eternal Son 
of God, who became Messiah at His Incarnation, Re¬ 
deemer, and Judge on the Last Day. He Himself of¬ 
fered the test of His claims, and of His Father's testi- 

SSLuke, XXIV, 44 & 45. See also Mark, XVI, 14; also Le Camus vol 
III, pages 471 et seq., and 483 et seq. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 119 

mony to their truth, in the character of His works. But, 
of course, the critics in question evade, in one way or 
other, the admission of the truly miraculous character 
of those works. However, we, for our part, are justi¬ 
fied in asserting that the so-called problem of the “Mes¬ 
sianic Consciousness” is a mere figment of the imagina¬ 
tions of men, learned enough, but, somewhat like the 
scribes, and Pharisees, blinded by their obstinate adhe¬ 
rence to their own preconceptions against the possibi¬ 
lity of the really divine in Jesus. In treating of the 
declarations of Jesus, we have sufficiently refuted the 
fallacy of the “Eschatological Messiahship.” The prob¬ 
lem of the “Reserve of Jesus” 3 * about His Messiahship, 
especially during the earlier stages of His Ministry, is 
a real one; but it is of minor, not of capital importance. 
It pales into insignificance before the fact that He is 
the God-Man Messiah, who must have had good reasons 
for the course, which He followed in His revelations of 
Himself. May we not be allowed to observe here, that 
humanly speaking, there would not have been need for 
Him to do more than assert that He is the God-Man 
Messiah ? If God really testified through the Messianic 
Predictions that His Christ is the Incarnate Son of God; 
and if Jesus really gave trustworthy testimony that He 
is Jehovah's Christ, there was no necessity for declara¬ 
tions of His divinity independently of His Messiahship. 

PROOF OF THIRD POINT OF MINOR PREMISE 
FROM THE TESTIMONY OF THE WRITERS 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

God really testified through the Messianic Predic¬ 
tions that His Christ is the Incarnate Son of God. 
Those prophecies hang together. The numerous cita- 


34 See Lepin, pages 129-131, 143-150, 165-167, 168, 183, 235-236. 



120 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

tions above made from them show how completely the 
utterances about the God-Man Messiah pervade the 
other utterances about His birth, time of advent, mis¬ 
sion and death. Indeed, the divinity of “Ha-Adon” is 
the keystone of the whole collection. On the other 
hand, if the utterances about His birth, and other cir¬ 
cumstances, which are capable of experimental verifi¬ 
cation, have been fulfilled, so, likewise, have been ful¬ 
filled the prophecies, which by themselves are incapable 
of sense-perceived substantiation. For, foreknowledge 
of the one kind is just as supernatural as the other. 
Revelation from God was absolutely necessary in either 
case. Nor can anyone, who admits the existence, and 
attributes of the Personal God, suppose for an instant 
that He would allow errors, or deceptions, to be mixed 
in integrally, and essentially with predictions, which 
were otherwise fulfilled. A fortiori, He could not allow 
the Divine Sonship of the Messiah, unless it were so, 
to be foretold, and received until the end of time, as 
the very substance of what concerned the character of 
His Christ. Hence, if we can prove the fulfillment in 
Jesus of what lies within the domain of history in the 
predictions about the Messiah, His Divine Sonship 
must be likewise, and simultaneously be conceded. It 
must be granted that God testified that Jesus is His 
Christ, the Incarnate Son of God. Further, apart from 
the declarations, and works of Jesus Himself, there is 
the testimony of the writers of the New Testament 
about the Messiahship of Jesus. Even if their inspira¬ 
tion be denied, their testimony, which has been pre¬ 
served with the greatest care, is a part of human tradi¬ 
tion, which cannot be neglected. Those writers afford 
to all men of good sense, and good will, not only what 
they personally believed about Jesus, but also what 
they, as eye-witnesses, saw fulfilled from the prophets 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 121 

in Jesus. Consequently, as far as His divinity is con¬ 
cerned, why not conclude—“ab esse ad posse valet ilia- 
tio”? But not all the writers of the New Testament 
were eye-witnesses. True, although all were of the 
Apostolic Age. Yet, what the eye-witnesses have left 
is enough. If what the others adduce, be regarded as 
merely confirmatory, we do not object. In the pre¬ 
sumption that all were sincere, the eye-witnesses, at 
least, are safe from the charge of credulity. They 
were influenced by the official teaching of the Temple 
about the Man-Messiah, and his battles for Juda, and 
Jerusalem. They could not understand the sufferings 
of the Messiah, until after they had been persuaded 
by tangible evidence of the fact of the Resurrection. 
Not till after the Ascension, did they have light on the 
spirituality of the Messianic Kingdom. Not till after 
the happenings on Pentecost, did they have the truly 
apostolic spirit towards the proclaiming of the name of 
Jesus, Redeemer, and Incarnate Word. Later, they, and 
their contemporaries produced the New Testament, in 
full conviction that Jesus is the God-Man Messiah. 

FULFILLMENT IN JESUS OF MICHEAS, V., 2. 

St. Matthew gives testimony that, in accordance 
with Micheas, V., 2, Jesus was born in Bethlehem of 
Juda, and in such circumstances as to prove Him the 
Messiah. “The wise men” seek the “King of the 
Jews” at Jerusalem, because of “the star, which they 
had seen in the East.” The chief priests, and scribes 
cite the prophecy of Micheas to Herod. They do not 
do so literally, and fully. But they do so sufficiently 
to convince Herod, as well as themselves, that Beth¬ 
lehem of Juda is the birthplace assigned to the Mes¬ 
siah. For, it is Herod himself, who sends “the wise 


122 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

men” to Bethlehem. The character of their adoration 
of the child may be disputed. Nevertheless, in some 
way, “the wise men” knew of the coming “King of the 
Jews,” or the Messiah. They were guided to an infant, 
both before, and after seeing Herod, by something 
called “a star”; “and falling down they adored him.” 
No regal splendor, and pomp surrounded that little 
child, helpless, and destitute to all outward appearance; 
and, yet, they fell down, and adored Him. This was 
extraordinary. It was homage to the Messianic Child; 
and it seems to have been divine worship. The warn¬ 
ing of Joseph by the angel of the impending slaughter 
of the innocents was also extraordinary. Moreover, 
St. Matthew assures us that the remaining of the 
Holy Family in Egypt was for the accomplishment of 
Osee, XI., 1.—“Out of Egypt have I called my son.” 35 

St. Luke 36 also testifies that Jesus was born in 
Bethlehem, and, likewise, mentions events indicative of 
His Messiahship, which, however, were anterior to 
those noted by St. Matthew. Thus, he tells us that an 
angel of the Lord stood by the shepherds of Bethlehem, 
who were keeping watch over their flocks on the night, 
when Jesus was born, and said to them—“this day is 
born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the 
city of David. And this shall be a sign unto you. You 
shall find the child wrapped in swaddling clothes, and 
laid in a manger.” Moreover, he adds that, after the 
multitude of angels appearing, and saying“Glory to 
God in the highest: and on earth peace to men of good¬ 
will,” had departed into heaven, the shepherds went, 
and found the child, by means of the sign vouchsafed 
to them. Since both St. Matthew, and St. Luke inform 
us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, there is nothing 


35Matthew, II, 1-15. 
36Luke, II, 4-20. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 123 

to the theory of Renan, and others, who claim that He 
was born at Nazareth. Jesus was constantly called a 
“Nazariteand the inscription, “Jesus of Nazareth” 
was placed on the Cross. But the term “Nazarene” 
was contemptuous. It was so applied to Jesus by the 
scribes, and Pharisees. Nazareth itself was so belittled 
by the Judaeans that Nathaniel could ask—“Can 
anything of good come out of Nazareth”? (John, I., 
46). But Nazareth was not “the city of David” men¬ 
tioned by St. Luke, (II., 4). As far as Mary, and Jo¬ 
seph were concerned, St. Luke (II., 39) could write of 
“their city Nazareth,” not only as their place of abode, 
but also because they had been betrothed there; and, 
one year later, had gone through the Jewish ceremonies 
of marriage there. 37 Moreover, Jesus, as a child, and 
as a young man, belonged to Nazareth, “where he was 
brought up” (Luke, IV., 16). But, if we can believe 
St. Luke, II., 39 and 51, and St. Matthew, II., 23, why 
not also St. Matthew, II., 1, and St. Luke, II., 4-7, and 
15 and 16? Finally, since both St. Matthew, and St. 
Luke assure us that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, 
under exceptional conditions, which verified His Mes- 
siahship; and since, in consequence, the tangible por¬ 
tion of Micheas, V., 2, was fulfilled in Jesus, the line 
of reasoning premised by us warrants us in adding that, 
besides His birth in time, “his going forth is from the 
beginning, from the days of eternity.” 

FULFILLMENT IN JESUS OF ISAIAS, VII., 14. 

Despite assertions to the contrary, St. Luke testi¬ 
fies that the Mother of Jesus, as Man, was a Virgin, 
while St. Matthew explicitly testifies that Isaias, VII., 
14, was fulfilled in Jesus and Mary. St. Luke (II., 1-7) 


,?7See Didon, vol. II, page 423. 



124 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

says that, when Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph were 
at Bethlehem, instead of at “their city Nazareth,” be¬ 
cause of a Roman decree of enrolment, carried out in 
Judaea by Quirinius (Cyrinus). Difficulties have been 
raised both against the fact of such an enrolment in 
such a subjugated province as Judaea, and against its 
execution then and there by Quirinius. However, the 
Gospel narrative stands. 38 But, if it be allowed to 
stand, we are told that it shows that Mary and Joseph 
must have been married in the ordinary sense of the 
word. Indeed, St. Luke (II., 39-52) is said to affirm 
this, by his account of Jesus, and of “his parents” at 
Nazareth, together with his account of what happened 
at the going up into Jerusalem, on the occasion of the 
Pasch, “when he was twelve years old.” It is claimed 
that the response of Jesus that He must be about His 
Father’s business (verse 49th) was not understood by 
“his parents” (v. 50th). But, if so, why did Mary keep 
“all these words in her heart” (v. 51st), instead of ask¬ 
ing Jesus what He meant? Any ordinary mother, 
hearing her child “twelve years old” apparently deny¬ 
ing the paternity of his father could not have refrained 
from astonishment, and inquiry into such an extra¬ 
ordinary procedure. 

St. Luke (III., 23-28) gives a genealogy, which is 
apparently brought down to Joseph, as if the latter 
were the natural father of Jesus. But, at the outset, 
in verse 23rd, he combats such an error. Jesus, “being, 
as it was supposed, the son of Joseph”, was not to be 
deemed so in reality. For, in the two preceding verses, 
His Divine Sonship had been described as manifested 
in a visible, and audible manner. “Jesus also being 
baptized and praying, heaven was opened; And the 
Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, as a dove upon 


S8See Section II of this work, Chapter I, page 172. 





Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 125 

him; and a voice came from heaven: Thou art my be¬ 
loved Son; in thee I am well pleased.” Hence, since 
Mary and Joseph were near akin, St. Luke, in a way 
intelligible to his contemporaries, but obscure to us, 
must have delineated the relationship of Mary, as well 
as of Joseph, to the house of David. The same holds 
true of the genealogy, which is given in St. Matthew, 
(I., 1-17), but which differs somewhat from that in St. 
Luke. Doubtless, St. Matthew and St. Luke utilized 
tables of “the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of 
David, the son of Abraham,” which arrived at the same 
goal, but by two slightly divergent roads. Both of them 
certainly aimed to trace the descent of Jesus as Man 
through Joseph, His reputed father, according to the 
Law, and, simultaneously, through Mary, His Mother, 
according to the flesh. 39 Certainly, also, St. Matthew, 
in proving the fulfillment in Jesus of Isaias, VII., 14, 
plainly, and conclusively demonstrates that St. Joseph 
was merely the foster-father of Jesus. Yet, this in 
itself was a unique privilege before God, and men. 
If St. Matthew was not personally acquainted with 
St. Joseph, who seems to have died before the Public 
Ministry of Jesus began, he surely knew Mary well. 
Hence, he could, and did get the facts about “the gene¬ 
ration of Jesus Christ” from her. This much must be 
conceded by those, who will not see a divine origin of 
knowledge in him. Moreover, if anything in the Gos¬ 
pels is historical, it is the absolutely upright character 
of Mary. It would be useless to argue with any, who 
would attempt to impeach her testimony. Indeed, this 
phase of the Gospel narrative so impressed one infidel 
scientist in this country, that, a few years ago, he pro¬ 
pounded the theory of the possibility of natural, human 
partheno-genesis. 


3.9See Didon, vol. II, Append. C. Also Le Camus, vol. I, pages 145 et seq. 



126 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

This is the testimony of St. Matthew (I., 18-23). 
“Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When 
as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before 
they came together, she was found with child of the 
Holy Ghost. Whereupon Joseph her husband, being 
a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was 
minded to put her away privately. But while he 
thought on these things, behold the Angel of the Lord 
appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of 
David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for 
that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. 
And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his 
name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their 
sins. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled 
which the Lord spoke by the prophet saying: Behold 
a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and 
they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being inter¬ 
preted is, God with us.” Although the wording is not 
exactly identical, verse 23rd is surely a repetition of 
Isaias, VII., 14. Therefore, Mary is the Virgin as such, 
and by excellence. Jesus is “Emmanuel.” Hence, ac¬ 
cording to the true meaning of Isaias, VII., 14, as pre¬ 
viously explained, and according to the mode of its ful¬ 
fillment, demanded by the present line of argumenta¬ 
tion, Jesus is in fact “God with us.” Moreover, from 
the fulfillment of Isaias, VII., 14, taken together with 
Micheas, V., 2, it follows that He was Messiah from 
His Incarnation. 

FULFILLMENT IN JESUS OF DANIEL, IX., 24-27, 
ON THE DATES OF THE PUBLIC ADVENT, 
AND THE VIOLENT DEATH OF “THE 
MESSIAS, THE PRINCE.” 

We may recall that Daniel, IX., 24-27, predicted, 
especially, the date of the Public Advent of the Mes- 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 127 

siah, and, consequently, of His Violent Death. The 
Gospels afford the data of the time of the Crucifixion, 
and, consequently, of the Public Advent of Jesus. Thus, 
the Gospels testify to the fulfillment in Him of Daniel's 
prophecy, because the dates foretold regarding “the 
Holy of Holies", or “the Messias, the Prince," are veri¬ 
fied in Jesus, “the Son of the most High," of whose 
“kingdom there shall be no end." (Luke I., 32 and 
33).Daniel affirmed that 7 + 62 sevens of years, 
or 483 years, were to elapse from the time of the issu¬ 
ing of the decree of Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem, 
up to the time of “the Messias, the Prince." Since the 
time of “the Messias, the Prince" evidently regarded 
His appearance as “Prince," or King, about to establish 
the Spiritual, Messianic Kingdom of the 24th verse of 
the prophecy, it presumed Him already a full-grown 
man, and, consequently, according to Jewish law, and 
custom, 30 years old. The date of the decree of Ar¬ 
taxerxes was B. C. 457. Deduct this from 483, and the 
result is the year 26 of the Christian Era. Hence, the 
date of the Public Advent of the Messiah was to be A. 
D. 26. Moreover, in the middle of the 70th seven of 
years, or 3*4 years after His Public Advent, the Mes¬ 
siah was to be violently put to death; and, in conse¬ 
quence, the Mosaic Ritual was to be abolished; and, 
later, the city, and the Temple were to be destroyed by 
the Romans under Titus. 

According to the four Gospels, Jesus, who claimed 
to be the Messiah, was violently put to death, at Jeru¬ 
salem. He was crucified. The date of the Crucifixion 
was the 15th of Nisan, or 7th of April, A. D. 30. It 
took place during the reign of Tiberius, while Pontius 
Pilate was procurator of Judaea, And, consequently, 
between A. D. 26 and 36. Since Caiphas yet held the 


iOSee also John. XVIII, 33-40, and XIX. 19. 



128 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


office of high-priest, it likewise took place before A. D. 
34, when the latter was deposed. Further, it occurred 
on a Passover, or 15th of Nisan, which was a Friday. 
St. Mark, XV., 42, St. Luke, XXIII., 54-56, and St. Mat- 
them, XXVII., 62, testify to the fact that the 
Crucifixion Day was a Friday. But this Friday 
was a Passover, or 15 th of Nisan. This is 
proven by the fact that, as the Law pre¬ 
scribed, Jesus had eaten of the Paschal Lamb, on 
the evening before the feast itself St. John agrees 
with the other Evangelists in affirming that Crucifix¬ 
ion Day was a Friday in XIX., 31 and 42. Nor does he 
contradict their assertion that this Friday was a Pass- 
over, either in XIX., 14, since “preparation” implied the 
day before the Sabbath; or in XVIII., 28, since the eat¬ 
ing on the Passover meant, not only the consumption 
of the Paschal Lamb itself, but also of the voluntary 
sacrifices offered according to the Law,^ 2 especially on 
on the morning of the 15th of Nisan. Besides, even if 
this were not so, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, in the 
time of Our Blessed Lord, had already the custom of 
eating the Paschal Lamb on the feast-day itself, al¬ 
though outsiders were yet restricted to so doing on 
the evening before it. Indeed, later, according to the 
Talmud, the Jews extended the time of eating the 
Paschal Lamb into a full week. Moreover, this Pass- 
over, which was on a Friday, fell on the 7th of April, 
783 of the Roman Era, or A. D. 30. For, between the 
years A. D. 28 and 33, the extreme dates, set by critics 
for the Crucifixion, this was the sole year, when the 
Passover was on a Friday. Therefore, it is practically 
certain that Jesus was crucified, at Jerusalem, on the 


JlSt. Mark, XIV, 12; Luke, XXII, 7; Matthew, XXVI, 17, and John. 
XIII, 1, and XIX, 31 & 42. 

42See Exod., XXIII, 15 and XXXIV, 20; Deut., XVI 16. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 129 

7th of April, A. D. 30.* 3 Moreover, the “council of the 
malignant,” which rejected Him as Messiah, accused 
Him to Pilate as a pretender to royal power over the 
Jews. Further, the inscription on the Cross was “Je¬ 
sus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” Pilate put it 
there, and refused to remove it. Thus, like “the coun¬ 
cil of the malignant” itself, he was unconsciously an 
instrument for the working out of the Will of the 
Father. Besides, taking the Gospel of St. John as the 
basis, and filling in from the Synoptics, especially from 
the Gospel of St. Luke, we find that Jesus exercised His 
Public Ministry for 3% years.** Therefore, He made His 
Public Advent in the fall of A. D. 26. Its occasion was 
His Baptism, when, according to St. Luke, III., 23, He 
“was beginning about the age of 30 years.” St. John 
the Baptist (John, I., 26-36) authoritatively testified 
to His Messiahship. In accordance with Daniel, IX., 
24, He actually established His Spiritual, Messianic 
Kingdom, while He was on this earth, during the 3% 
years between His Public Advent and His Crucifixion. 
The fulfillment in Him of the rest of the prophecy 
would sufficiently prove this point. But, besides, the 
Gospels give ample testimony from the recorded char¬ 
acter of His words, and of His deeds that His Kingdom, 
although in the world, was not of the world.* 5 More¬ 
over, the fulfillment in Jesus of Daniel, IX., 24-27, also 
throws light upon the fulfillment of Micheas, V., 2, and 
of Isaias, VII., 14. For, we glean from it that the tem¬ 
poral birth, at Bethlehem, from the Virgin by excel¬ 
lence occurred in B. C. 4.* 6 In fine, with the demon- 


.43Some Catholics, relying on their interpretations of patristic testimon¬ 
ies, place the date of the Crucifixion in A. D. 29. See “The Cath. 
Encyc.,’’ art. “Jesusand art. “Chronology.” While, absolutely 
speaking, this year would fit in with the prophecy of Daniel, never¬ 
theless, the facts of history do not accord with its acceptance. 

.WCornely, “Comp.,” pages 513-515. 

45John, XVIII. 33-37. 

J,60n the whole chronology of the life of Jesus see Didon, vol. II, Ap« 
pend. A. 



130 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


stration from the accredited testimony of the New 
Testament writers of the fulfillment in Jesus of 
Micheas, V., 2, Isaias, VII., 14, and Daniel, IX., 24- 
27, already necessarily goes the fact that Jesus, who 
was Messiah from His Incarnation, as it were in po- 
tentia, and from His Public Adent, as it were in actu, 
is the God-Man, “God with us,” who existed from the 
days of eternity, before being generated in time. 

FULFILLMENT IN JESUS OF ISAIAS LIII., 1-7, 
PARTICULARLY IN REGARD TO THE VICA¬ 
RIOUS CHARACTER OF HIS SUFFERINGS. 


As we have previously shown in a general way, if 
the prophets could predict the facts, and the details of 
the sufferings, and demise of Jesus, so, likewise, could 
they announce in advance the reason of these things. 
Further, if the New Testament writers did verify in 
Jesus the predicted facts, and details of the Passion, 
susceptible of sense-perceived test, it is logically neces¬ 
sary to believe that Jesus, the God-Man, became the 
Spiritual Redeemer of all mankind. It would almost 
be a work of supererogation to prove that all four Gos¬ 
pels have bequeathed notices of fulfillments of such 
predicted data of the Passion.* 7 Consequently, logical 
critics should also see in the testimony of the Gospels 
the record of the accomplishment in Jesus of the vicar¬ 
ious phase of the sufferings of the “Servant” of God, 
particularly, as predicted in Isaias, LIII., 1-7. St. John, 


.^Matthew, 26,31 in Zach., 13,7; 26, 52 on Gen., 9, 6; 26 54 on Is 
53, 10; 26, 56 on Lam., 4, 20; 26, 27 on Is., 50, 6; 27, 9 on Zach’ 
11, 12 ; 27, 27 on Ps., 21, 17 ; 27, 35 on Ps., 21, 19 ; 27, 42 on Wisd ’ 
2, 18; 27. 43 on Ps., 21, 9; 27, 46 on Ps., 21, 2; 27, 51 on II 
Para, 3, 14. 


Mark 14, 21 on Ps., 40; 10; 14; 27 on Zach., 13, 7 ; 15, 28 on Is 

53, 12; 15, 34 on Ps. 21, 21. 

Luke, 22, 37 on Is. 53, 12; 23, 30 on Is., 2, 19 and Osee, 10, 8* 23 

46 on Ps., 30, 6. 

John, 19, 24 on Ps., 21, 19; 19, 28 on Ps. 68, 22 ; 19, 36 on Exod 12 
46; 19, 37 on Zach., 12, 10. ' ’ ’ 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 131 

XII., 37 and 38, remarks upon that incredulousness of 
the contemporaries of Jesus, which was predicted in 
verse 1st of the prophecy. Jesus grew up as a tender 
plant from the root of Jesse, and the family of David 
after it had been reduced to poverty, and obscurity. 
(Luke, II., 4-7, 39 and 40). Even His own townsmen 
saw no beauty in Him, and were not desirous of Him. 
(Mark, VI., 1-6.) Much less, were “the council of the 
malignant.” According to verse 3rd* 8 of the prophecy, 
He was despised, and most vilely treated. He was 
mocked, struck, spat upon, scourged, crowned with 
thorns, insulted, and tormented, even when dying upon 
the Cross. Consequently, according to verses 4th* 9 and 
5th of the prophecy, the sufferings of Jesus were not 
only vicarious, but also effectual as such. Moreover, 
the Redemption, which results from His sufferings, af¬ 
fords not only peace, and reconciliation with God in 
this world, but also peace, and everlasting happiness 
in heaven.- 50 Thus, we acquire a fuller comprehension 
of the manner, in which Jesus established His Spiritual 
Kingdom, or Church, at His first advent, as foretold 
in Daniel, IX., 24-27, as distinguished from His second 
advent, as described in Daniel, VII., 13-27. Moreover, 
after the fact, and according to Gospel history, we may 
be permitted to add that the mission of Jesus, at His 
first advent, may be very properly extended to include 
the events of Pentacost Day. Further, according to 
Isaias, LIII., 6, the Redemption is de jure universal in 
this world. Lastly, whether it be called testimony, or 
personal belief, a passage from St. Peter, bearing on 
verses 4-7 of the prophecy, certainly deserves mention 
here. It refers to Jesus—“who, when he was reviled, 

AS On the fulfillment of Isaias, LIII, 3. see Matthew, 26, 67 & 68, and 
27, 13-31; Mark, 14, 65 and 15, 4-20; Luke, 22, 63-65, and 23, 8-11, 
13-25. John, 18-22 and 19, 1-22. 

490n one interpretation of Is., LIII, 4, see Matthew, 8, 17. 

o0On Is. LIII. 4-7, see also Heb. 10, 5-7 ; I John, 3, 5, and Rom. 5, 1 & 2. 



132 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

did not revile: when he suffered, he threatened not: but 
delivered himself to him that judged him unjustly. 
Who his ownself bore our sins in his body upon the 
tree: that we, being dead to sins, should live to justice: 
by whose stripes you were healed. For you were as 
sheep going astray: but you are now converted to the 
shepherd and bishop of your souls” (I. Peter, II., 
23-25). 

FULFILLMENT IN JESUS OF PSALM CIX., 1 AND 
4; AND OF PSALM II., 7. 

Since all the Messianic Predictions hang together, 
and stand, or fall together; and since a sufficient num¬ 
ber of their prophecies of details of the life on earth 
of the Messiah, have been proven, to have been fulfilled 
in the life of Jesus, it already follows, from the fact 
that the prophetic statements, now about to be con¬ 
sidered, are intrinsically connected with the rest of the 
supernatural fore-knowledge necessarily derived di¬ 
rectly from God, that Jesus is not only “Emmanuel”, 
the God-Man, but also “Ha-Adon” of Psalm CIX., and 
“Son of God” of Psalm II. This is confirmed by the 
fact that David, the author of both psalms, himself 
likewise foretold details of the Passion of Jesus Christ, 
especially in Psalm XXL, so frequently cited in the 
Gospels. Moreover, we may now assume that the as¬ 
sertions of the New Testament writers about the Di¬ 
vine Sonship of Jesus Christ are more than mere ex¬ 
pressions of opinions of men of olden times. Even if 
those writers be not yet acknowledged to have been 
inspired by God, they must be conceded to have had a 
special, and providential mission in regard to the propa¬ 
gation of knowledge of the divinity of Jehovah’s Christ. 
Hence, they may now be assumed to be on a plane 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 133 


higher than that of praisers of the master of their 
school of religious thought. 

Moreover, as was remarked in considering the 
Priest-King Prophecy of Psalm CIX., the one question 
behind the application to its subject of the whole Psalm 
is this. Who is “Ha-Adon” of verse 1st, who is the 
priest forever of verse 4th ? The solemn declaration by 
Jehovah of the fact of priesthood, does not evince the 
highest prerogative of Jehovah's Christ. The priest¬ 
hood is what determines the character of Christ’s mis¬ 
sion. The kingdom, which He founds at Sion through 
His One Sacrifice, obtains its final, and immutably eter¬ 
nal perfection in His triumph on the Day of Judg¬ 
ment. St. Paul says of the priesthood conferred on 
Jesus by Jehovah—“But this with an oath by Him that 
said to him: The Lord hath sworn, and He will not re¬ 
pent: Thou art a priest forever: By so much is Jesus 
made a surety of a better testament.” (Heb., VII., 
21 and 22). St. Paul says again—“As He saith also 
in another place: Thou art a priest forever, according 
to the order of Melchisedech”. 5 * Regarding the first 
verse of the psalm, St. Paul says of Jesus—“But he 
offering one sacrifice for sins, forever sitteth on the 
right hand of God. From henceforth expecting until 
his enemies be made his footstool.” 52 Moreover, St. 
Peter (Acts, II., 34-36) adds—“For David did not as¬ 
cend into heaven: but he himself said: The Lord said 
to My Lord, sit thou on my right hand, until I make 
thy enemies thy footstool. Therefore, let all the house 
of Israel know most assuredly that God hath made him 
Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have cru¬ 
cified.” 

In treating of the 7th verse of Psalm II., we ob- 


5lHeb., V, 6; see also V, 9 & 10 ; VI, 20; VII, 17. 

52Heb., X, 12 & 13 ; see also Heb. I, 13 ; Rom., VIII, 34 ; Eph., I, 20 , 
Acts, VII, 55, and I Peter, III, 22. 



134 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

served that David represented God as affirming that 
the Messiah is His Son, the Second Person of the Trin¬ 
ity, in whom the Divine Nature and the Human Nature 
are hypostatically united. We may now add that 
David did so, because God actually spoke through him. 
Moreover, it is precisely because Jesus is this Personal 
Messiah, that, in accordance with the general tenor of 
the psalm, His dominion is absolute, universal, destruc¬ 
tive to His enemies, and beneficient to those, who trust 
in Him, especially on the Last Day, when the public, 
and everlasting ratification of Divine Providence in this 
world will occur. Further, it has been shown that the 
two clauses of verse 7th—“thou art my son,” and— 
“this day have I begotten thee,” are parallel in the 
original Hebrew, with a strict parallelism of repetition 
of meaning under different verbal vestures. As has 
been said, all Catholics understand the first clause— 
“thou art my son”, of the Divine, Eternal Generation, 
although, some Catholic writers have attempted to in¬ 
terpret the second clause—“this day have I begotten 
thee,” either of the Temporal Generation, or of the 
Resurrection. We cannot deny that there is a secondary, 
and metaphorical reference to the Resurrection in the 
verse in question. For, St. Paul says—“And we de¬ 
clare to you that the promise, which was made to our 
fathers, This same hath God fulfilled to our children, 
raising up Jesus again, as in the second psalm also is 
written: Thou art my son: this day have I begotten 
thee. And that he raised him up from the dead to 
return no more to corruption, he said thus: That I will 
give to you the holy faithful things of David. And 
therefore in another place also he saith: Thou shalt 
not suffer thy holy one to see corruption.” 53 But St. 

5SActs, XIII, 32-35. See also Heb., V, 5 ; Rom., I, 4; Phil., II, 5-11 ; 

Col., I, 3 2-23; Matthew, XXVIII, 18. and XIX, 28. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 135 

Paul does not appear to have divided the second clause 
of verse 7th of the psalm from the first, and to have 
attributed another meaning to it. He seems to have 
used both clauses together of the metaphorical genera¬ 
tion of the Resurrection to a new life of glory. More¬ 
over, he presupposed the fundamental, and literal ap¬ 
plication of both clauses to the divine, natural, eternal 
filiation of Jesus. “For to which of the angels hath 
he said at any time: Thou art my son: this day have 
I begotten thee ? And, again, I will be to him a Father: 
and he shall be to me a Son ? And, again, when he in¬ 
troduced the first begotten into the world, he saith: 
And let all the angels of God adore him. And to the 
angels indeed he saith: He that maketh his angels, 
spirits: and his ministers a flame of fire. But to the 
Son, Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever and ever.” (Heb. 
I., 5-8). 

In fine, the premises being established, the conclu¬ 
sion of the Prophecy-Argument stands. Jesus is the 
Son of God, who became Messiah at His Incarnation. 
He suffered, and died, in order that mankind might be 
redeemed. He established His Kingdom, at His first 
advent. On earth, it is the Church Militant. In heaven, 
it is the Church Triumphant. Any unprejudiced un¬ 
believer, Jew, or Gentile, should be convinced of the 
truth of our conclusion, even apart from what was in¬ 
serted on the Messianic Predictions collectively con¬ 
sidered. The modern critics of the Bible, who may be 
ruled by logic, and common sense, should likewise abide 
by the testimony of Jesus Himself. Nor can the con¬ 
firmation offered by Jesus of His words in His super¬ 
natural works be rightfully ignored. Nor can anyone, 
who is earnestly, and sincerely seeking light, afford to 
neglect the Messianic declarations of Jesus, in inter¬ 
preting His direct declarations of Divine Sonship. 






SECTION II. 


Jesus of the Gospels the Incarnate Son 
Of God. 


CHAPTER I. 

THE GOSPEL-ARGUMENT. THE ATTACKS UPON 
ITS MINOR PREMISE. 


The Gospel Argument may be thus stated. What God has 
testified to, is absolutely true. But God has testified to the 
fact that Jesus of the Gospels is the Second Person of the 
Trinity, who “was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” There¬ 
fore Jesus of the Gospels is the Incarnate Son of God. The 
major premise, being identical with that of the Prophecy-Ar¬ 
gument, requires no eludication here. The case, however, 
with the minor premise is different. We must prove that 
“God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in 
times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these 
days hath spoken to us by His Son,” inasmuchas He has con¬ 
stituted His Son Incarnate His mouthpiece, endowed with the 
power of performing supernatural works, which manifest the 
divine origin of the declarations of Jesus regarding His iden¬ 
tity, and presence in the world. But we wish to achieve this 
result in a manner effective against all the opponents of the 
Divine Sonship of Jesus. There are those, who are openly 
hostile to the claims of Jesus. Some of them have attacked 
His moral dignity, while others have denied His existence 
in this world. There are other opponents of the Divine Son- 
ship of Jesus, who appear to be sincere in advocating theo¬ 
ries, into which they have been led by fundamentally erro¬ 
neous preconceptions of the basic principles of religion. But 
we cannot accept the generic distinction, which they would 
draw between themselves and those openly hostile to Jesus. 
All are rationalists, inclusive of the votaries of “Higher Cri- 




138 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


ticism,” and of its appendant, “Modernism.” All start out 
from the gratuitous, and erroneous postulate that the super¬ 
natural is intrinsically impossible. All deny the infallible 
authority of the Catholic Church as the centralized medium 
of Divine Revelation. All, consequently, see nothing to the 
Gospels beyond the pretension to be written relics of the 
past, whose worth must be decided by the exercise of private 
judgment. Manifestly, therefore, before adducing the divine 
testimony that Jesus is the Incarnate Son of God, we must 
defend the historicity of the Gospels, waiving, for the sake of 
argument, their relationship to the Word of God. Thus, we 
lay the foundation for the necessary consideration of the 
existence, words, and deeds of Jesus, while simultaneously 
proving that the true “Historical Jesus” is the Jesus of the 
Gospels. 

Moreover, as good Christians, we should aim not only to 
refute, but also, as far as possible, to convince. In this latter 
regard, we may possibly obtain a hearing from those, who 
admit that the authentic declarations of Jesus about Himself, 
in so far as they are preserved in the Gospels, and, likewise, 
in so far as they can be selected out of the entourage of the 
posthumous traditions of primitive Christianity, are above 
the slightest suspicion of falsehood on His part. Their admis¬ 
sion is evidently hedged in within narrow boundaries. Never¬ 
theless, since it presupposes authentic declarations by Jesus; 
and, especially, since it precludes lack of sincerity in Jesus, 
it may serve as a common meeting-point between its makers 
and ourselves. In order to facilitate a mutual understand¬ 
ing, moreover, we, for our part, are willing to prescind from 
the declarations by Jesus of Messiahship, at least, for the time 
being, and provided that the critics in question are willing to 
concede that Jesus, as sane, as well as as truthful, has already 
been shown to be incapable of self-deception, even if He di¬ 
rectly claims divinity. But it would not accord with a se¬ 
rious inquiry into the precise nature of the claims of Jesus 
to reserve the right to reject authentic declarations of Jesus, 
which, upon examination, are found to be contradictory to 
what had been previously imagined in some regard. Before 
all else, an absolute criterion of what is authentic in the 
declarations of Jesus of the Gospels should be settled upon. 
Afterwards, the meaning of such declarations of indisputable 
genuineness, as appear to bear upon Divine Sonship, could be 
properly considered. In fine, the proof of the minor premise 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 139 


of the Gospel-Argument covers three points. The first is that 
Jesus of the Gospels is the Jesus of history. The second point 
is that He is the practically equipped mouthpiece of God. The 
third point is that He is the self-declared, but, also, divinely 
attested, Incarnate Son of God. Before going into these 
points, however, it seems wise, in this Second Section, to pre¬ 
viously present together all the attacks, which have been 
made upon the minor premise. 


ATTEMPTS TO ASSIMILATE THE GOSPEL REC¬ 
ORD OF THE WORKS, THE TEACHINGS, 
AND, EVEN, THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS 
WITH THE LEGENDS, MYTHS, AND 
FABLES OF ANCIENT PAGAN 
RELIGIONS. 


In reviewing the errors against the historical 
value of the Gospel life of Jesus, we may commence 
with its attempted assimilation with the legendary his¬ 
tory, which has accumulated around Gautama. Ernest 
von Bunsen* strove to make out that Jesus was a mem¬ 
ber of the sect of Essenes, by whom He was so re¬ 
vered, that, after His death, they applied to Him the 
“legend” of the “Angel-Messiah,” in that form, in 
which it had previously obtained amongst the disciples 
of Gautama. Moreover, he vainly exerted himself in 
an elaborate effort to trace almost every dogma of 
Christianity back to a Buddhist source. Rudolph Sey- 
del 2 undertook to improve upon von Bunsen's method of 
assigning a Buddhist origin to Gospel teachings. He 
argued that some of the latter were so similar to what 

IE. von Bunsen, “The Angel-Messiah of Buddhists, Essenes; and Chris¬ 
tians,” London, 1880. See on this work, C. Aiken, “The Dhamma of 
Gotama the Buddha and the Gospel of Jesus the Christ,” Boston, 
1900, pages 174 et seq. 

2R. Seydel, “Das Evangelium von Jesu in seinem Verhiiltnissen zu Buddha- 
Sage,” etc., Leipzig, 1882. “Die Buddha-legende und das Seben Jesu,” 
etc., Leipzig, 1884. See Aiken, pages 179 et seq. Also T. S. Berry, 
“Christianity and Buddhism,” London, 1891, pages 117 et seq., & 226- 
229. Likewise, Fillion, “Les Stapes,” etc., pages 310-312. 






140 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

he adduced as Buddhist parallels, that they must have 
sprung from these. If so, the argument by analogy; 
could be extended to the whole Gospel life of Jesus. 
He also conjectured that one of the records, made use 
of in the Gospel attributed to St. Luke, was in reality a 
jewish version of a legendary account of Gautama. 
However, Rhys Davids, 3 a noted authority on Budd¬ 
hism, admitted that similarities between Christianity 
and Buddhism do not argue for the dependence of the 
former on the latter. Yet he himself concluded that 
it could be inferred that there was a similarity be¬ 
tween the formation of the Gospel account of the life 
of Jesus, and the formation of the legendary history 
of Gautama. For, in the opinion of Davids, just as 
the disciples of Gautama ended by magnifying the lat¬ 
ter into a wonder-worker, and extraordinary being, so, 
likewise, the disciples of Jesus, after His death, magni¬ 
fied Him into a miracle-worker, and into the very Son 
of God Himself. Herman Oldenburg,* from a some¬ 
what different point of view, attempted to draw an 
analogy between the legendary history of Gautama and 
the Gospel history of Jesus, by supposing that, in both 
cases, the disciples were, at first, wholly wrapped up in 
the contemplation of the new, and beautiful doctrines 
of their respective teachers, and, consequently, did not 
think of recording the lives of the respective founders 
of Buddhism, and of Christianity, until long after the 
disappearance of authentic data. Oldenberg inclined 
to the theory that the Gospels were written up in the 
early church upon the basis of a collection of sayings, 
and of discourses of the Lord Jesus, which had been 
current for years beforehand, and which, also, was 
devoid of historical sequence, and of chronological ac- 

3R. Davids “Hibbert Lectures,” London, 1881. See also Berry, page 229. 
4H- Oldenberg, “Buddha, his Life, his Doctrine,” etc., London, 1882, espe¬ 
cially pages 79 & 80. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 141 

curacy. We shall have occasion to refer hereinafter 
to this collection called the “Logia Kyriaka. ,, 

In response to Oldenberg 5 it may be said that it is 
true that the system of thought formulated by Gau¬ 
tama was of paramount importance to his immediate 
disciples, who, consequently, neglected recording the 
facts of his life. But the contrary is true of the dis¬ 
ciples of Jesus, who, as the reading of the Gospels de¬ 
monstrates, were, above all, attracted by His deeds; 
and who, even after His Resurrection, were slow to 
realize His message. Davids is not justified in assert¬ 
ing that a comparison could be drawn between the 
formation of the Gospel account of Jesus and the for¬ 
mation of the fanciful tales which, during the course 
of ages, became engrafted upon the vague remem¬ 
brance of the bare fact of Gautama’s existence. 6 It can 
be historically established that the Gospels were all 
written within the lifetimes of those disciples, who 
had been personally selected by the Lord Himself, as 
well as supervised by many, who had been eye-wit¬ 
nesses of all, that had transpired during His Public 
Life. Davids, however, is justified in denying that 
similarities, real, or apparent, between ancient Budd¬ 
hism and primitive Christianity necessarily imply the 
dependence of the latter upon the former. Ancient 
Buddhism 7 was not a religion. It had no theology. It 
was a system of morality, or duty, without God, prayer, 
or priest. It was a protest against Brahmanism, and 
against the tyranny of caste exclusiveness. It made 

5See Berry, pages 30 & 127 & 128. 

60n the life of Buddha, see Rhys Davids, “Buddhism,” etc., London, 1894, 
pages 22 et seq. ; Aiken, pages 63 et seq.; “Sacred Books of the Bast,” 
London & N. Y., 1900, pages 293 et seq.; “Chinese and Arabian Lit¬ 
erature,” London & N. Y., 1900, “The Travels of Fa-Hien,” pages 205 
et seq.; Berry, pages 51 et seq. 

7Aiken, pages 129 et seq.; 153 et seq.; 304 et seq.; Rhys Davids, Bud¬ 
dhism,” pages 86 et seq.; 124 et seq.; Berry, pages 71 et seq.; 94 et 
seq. ; Max Muller. “The Six Systems of Indian Philosophy,” N. Y., 
1899, pages 19 et seq.: “Sacred Books of the East,” pages 111 et 
seq.; Monier-Williams, “Hinduism,” London, 1897, pages 72 et seq. 



142 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

all men equal. It taught that all must suffer person¬ 
ally for sin, either in this life, or in future existences. 
All atoning sacrifice was useless. All actions good, or 
bad, led to future existences. Hence the chief aim of 
the Buddhist, or “enlightened one,” was the attain¬ 
ment of “Nirvana,” or extinction of being. This was 
supposed to be attained by self-abnegation, meditation, 
and the suppression of every kind of act. The Bud¬ 
dhist meditated, but he never prayed, because he did 
not believe in a Personal God, nor, even, in an indivi¬ 
dual spiritual soul in man. He had no creed. He had 
the Law, or “Dharma,” which was formulated after the 
death of Gautama. According to the “Dharma,” he 
was left free to remain in the world, or to join the 
“Sangha,” or Buddhist Community. The latter course 
was the more perfect. If he choose to remain a lay¬ 
man, he was bound by five prohibitions, which excluded 
murder, stealing, adultery, lying, and drunkenness. Six 
perfections of conduct were likewise imposed upon him, 
namely, benevolence, moral goodness, forbearance, for¬ 
titude, meditation, and knowledge of the fact, cause, 
and cure of suffering in this world, and of the true 
paths to “Nirvana.” If he took the more perfect course, 
and joined the “Sangha,” he was bound by five addi¬ 
tional prohibitions, which prevented him from eating 
outside of stated times, from attending amusements, 
from using ornaments, or perfumes, from luxuriously 
sleeping, and from receiving gold or silver. These pro¬ 
hibitions presupposed a life of celibacy, and poverty. 
The celibacy was strict. Even conversation with 
women was against the rule of the order. The poverty 
was almost complete, and the means of sustenance were 
obtained by begging. 

Twelve additional perfections of conduct were also 
incumbent upon the one, who became a Buddhist monk. 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 143 

He had to wear a coat of rags. This coat was to be 
made up of three pieces sewn together by himself. It 
was to be covered with a yellow cloak. He was to eat 
but one meal daily. He was not to eat after noon. He 
was to live on food collected by himself from door to 
door in a wooden bowl. He was to live part of each 
year in woods, and jungles. He could not have other 
shelter than the leaves of trees. He could have no 
furniture but a carpet. During sleep, he was to sit, 
not to lie down, upon this carpet. He was to sit with 
no other support than the trunk of a tree. He was 
obliged to frequent burial-places every month, in order 
to meditate upon the vanity of life. Further, the 
Buddhist monk had to practise the six perfections of 
conduct, common to monks and to laymen, in a manner 
higher than required of the latter. Thus, for instance, 
he could not be content with forbearance, or patience. 
He was supposed to rise to the height, where he could 
forgive injuries. He was also expected to confess his 
sins. 

In the earliest form of Buddhism, there existed 
the custom of public confession, every fortnight, in 
every community of the Saugha. It took place in the 
evening, the oldest monk presiding. He opened the 
proceedings by announcing the purpose of the meet¬ 
ing. He then enumerated various kinds of offences, 
beginning with the class of faults, which entailed ex¬ 
pulsion, and ending with the kind the most trivial. 
After each class of faults had been announced, he asked 
three times for the self-accusation of crime on the 
part of the guilty. If no one spoke up, the presump¬ 
tion was that all present were innocent on that score. 
So the affair went on. If a monk confessed himself 
guilty of any offence, a penalty proportionate to its 
gravity was laid upon him. Later on, the private con- 


144 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

fession of sins came into vogue in the Saugha. A monk, 
guilty of a fault, was expected to confess it to a 
brother monk, on the very day of its commission, as 
well as to receive a fitting penance. The public confes¬ 
sion took place afterwards. Now, it is well known that 
the public confession, and public penance were con¬ 
spicuous in the early church, but that private confes¬ 
sion, and private penance did not loom up on the hori¬ 
zon until later. But here the parity ceases. The Sacra¬ 
ment of Penance was not administered in the early ages 
with the same frequency, and in the same way as is 
customary today. The lack of documents upon the 
usages of the early ages, however, does not argue 
against the fact that private confession, and private 
penance have come down from the beginning. Indeed, 
the silence of history upon the date of the introduc¬ 
tion of the Sacrament of Penance, is the best proof 
that it was never considered an innovation in the Cath¬ 
olic Church. 8 Certainly, there was no analogy, much 
less dependence, ever existing between the Sacrament 
of Penance, and the confession of sins of the Saugha 
of Pre-Christian Buddhism. The foundation of obser¬ 
vance of the “Dharma” was not laid upon any relation¬ 
ship to the Supreme Being. It was entirely selfish. It 
implied the taking of the supposed means of avoiding 
misery, both in the present life, and in future lives, 
through which a kind of realization of former un¬ 
worthiness persisted. Not recognizing the fact of the 
existence of the Personal God, the Buddhist monk 
could not recognize any intermediary of divine for¬ 
giveness between God and himself. The most that he 
could look for, was the condonement of offences against 
the rules of the Sangha, from which, besides, he was 
free to depart, when he chose to do so. Further, since 


SSee A. LSpicier, “Indulgences,” etc., N. Y., 1906, pages 160 et seq. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 145 

neither believed in God, his brother monk could not 
even pray for him. Moreover, since personal expiation 
during a sufficient number of existences was supposed 
to be the absolute prerequisite to the “Nirvana,” the 
offending monk had no conception of vicarious suffer¬ 
ing on his behalf, much less of Redemption, and of 
Sacraments. In fine, the Buddhist moral code was 
doubtless superior to the ethics of Plato, and of Aris¬ 
totle, inasmuchas it proposed benevolence to man, kind¬ 
ness to animals, forgiveness of injuries, and other kin¬ 
dred courses. Nevertheless, it had no substantial re¬ 
semblance to Christian Charity, precisely because it did 
not base itself upon the love of God. This much must 
be admitted, if it be held that there was no descent of 
Divine Revelation to original humanity into ancient 
Buddhism. SeydePs notion about a Buddhist-Jewish 
source influencing the Synoptic Gospels may be dis¬ 
missed with the remark that no trace of such an apo¬ 
cryphal, primitive gospel has ever been discovered. As 
far as Bunsen's theory is concerned, we may merely 
add that it evinces unpardonable ignorance of the his¬ 
tory in the Old Testament of the Messianic Hope. 9 

The attempts to establish some relationship of 
identity, or, at least, of similarity between the Gospel 
record of the life, and of the teachings of Jesus and 
the legendary account of the life, and of the teachings 
of Gautama have by no means monopolized the field of 
endeavor to trace back to mythical sources almost 
everything in the Gospels. Thus, for instance, efforts 
have been made to find the prototype of Jesus of the 
Gospels in the Iranian sun-god, Mithras. 19 Moreover, 
Carl Clemen 11 and his followers have shown themselves 

9It has been refuted, both by our own scholars, and by Evangelical Prot¬ 
estants. See Aiken, pages 198 et seq.: 211 et seq.; 234 et seq.; 305 
et seq.; and Berry, pages 194 et seq.; 220 et seq. 
lONotably, Frangois Cumont. See Fillion, page 312. 

UC. Clemen, “Religionsgeschichliche Erklarung des Neuen Testaments,” 
etc., Giesseu, 1909, pages 208 et seq. See Fillion, pages 313 et seq 



146 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


not averse to the hypothesis that ancient Chaldean, 
Persian, Greek, and Roman fables have crept into the 
evangelical accounts of the Infancy, Passion, and Re¬ 
surrection of Jesus. 

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the 
movement to deny the very existence of Jesus of the 
Gospels has striven to associate itself with the other, 
anti-christian phases of the comparative study of re¬ 
ligions. It is an absurd movement. It would overturn 
all human tradition, oral, and written. Its votaries 
could not consistently accept the testimony of their 
own parentage. They could not take the word of their 
own fathers and mothers. Consequently, aside from 
the question of the historicity of the Gospels, which 
is to them an a priori impossibility, they have lost the 
power to gravely consider any testimony to the exist¬ 
ence of Jesus. What other men may deem historical 
certainty in this regard, has no value for them. The 
orthodox Jews have always acknowledged that Jesus 
lived, and died in Palestine, because the evidence of the 
Talmud on these points is incontestable. Its composers 
surely were not prejudiced in favor of Jesus. Histo¬ 
rians have unanimously agreed that the authenticity of 
the passage in Book XV., 44, of the “Annals” of Taci¬ 
tus* 2 is beyond cavil; and, consequently, that its testi¬ 
mony about Jesus is indisputable. Its evident genuine¬ 
ness forced the French infidel, Ernest Ha vet, 13 who re¬ 
jected the Gospels as worthless on the subject, to de¬ 
clare that Jesus existed; and, that during the reign of 
Tiberius, He was put to death by Pontius Pilate, pro¬ 
curator of Judaea. In bringing it up, Thomas Carlyle*'' 
asked—“Who has ever forgotten those lines of Taci- 

12See English translation in “The Best of the World’s Classics,” New York, 

1909, vol. II, pages 193 et seq. See also C. Kirch, “Enchiridion Font. 

Hist. Eccles. Antiquae, Friburgi, 1910, pages 20 & 21. 
iSOn Havet, see Fillion, pages 258 & 259. 

U T. Carlyle, “Essays,” Boston, 1860, vol. II, page 7. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 147 

tus; inserted as a small, transitory, altogether trifling 
circumstance in the history of such a potentate as 
Nero? To us it is the most earnest, sad, and sternly 
significant passage that we know to exist in writing.” 
For 1800 years, overlapping generations of peoples of 
all kinds of religions, and of all kinds of philosophies 
agreed upon this truth that Jesus had existed. 

Nevertheless, in 1840, at Berlin, Bruno Bauer* 5 
boldly declared that the author of the Gospel of St. 
Mark had invented Jesus. From 1882 onward, A. 
Loman, 79 and other writers in Holland walked in the 
path marked out by Bauer. In 1902, at Leipzig, A. 
Kalthoff 77 supported the theory of Bauer in connection 
with his own theory that Christianity and its supposed 
founder were invented during a social upheaval simul¬ 
taneously occurring amongst Jews, Greeks, and Ro¬ 
mans. In 1906, at Strasburg, Peter Jensen 78 claimed 
that the “legend” of Jesus of the Gospels had been 
plagiarized from the epic of Gilgamesch, the Babylo¬ 
nian god-man. In 1909, at Jena, Arthur Drews 79 came 
into the lime-light. He is the accredited chief of the 
school, which, today, is denying the reality of Jesus of 
the Gospels, in the name of a Darwinian science of reli¬ 
gions. Unfortunately, especially in Germany, 29 this 
school is increasing amazingly, and alarmingly. Drews, 
and his lieutenants are writing, and lecturing in its 
favor with a zeal as rabid, as it is misguided. 27 The 
“Monists”, 22 or atheistic adherents to the absolute evo¬ 
lutionism of Haeckel, have hastened in thousands to its 


150n B. Bauer, see Fillion, pages 88 et seq. 

ISOn Loman, etc., see Fillion, pages 242 & 243. 
jf7Kalthoff, “Das Christus-Problem.” See Fillion, pages 247 & 248. 
JSJensen, “Der Gilgamesch—Epos in der Weltliteratur.” See Fillion, pages 
308-310. 

19Drews, “Die Christusmythe.” See Fillion, pages 321 et seq. 

200 n its Polish disciples. See Fillion, pages 250-253. 

2fSee Fillion, pages 320, 322 & 323, and 335 et seq. 

22See “Monism” in Baldwin’s “Dictionary of Phil, and of Psych.,” vol. II. 
See on same, “The Cath. Encyc.,”vol. X. 



148 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

support. So, likewise, have the Socialists 23 of the Marx 
type. According to the leader of this school the ficti¬ 
tious personality of Jesus was evolved from the combi¬ 
nation of two, old, religious fables. One of these was 
the sun-god fable, which, as Drews discovered, led 
“numerous sects of Jews” to revive in the mythical 
“demi-god” Jesus the old legend of Joshua, or 
sun-god, who was supposed to lead a chosen 
people into a land of promise. The other fable 
was that of Adonis, called in Syriac, Tammuz, whose 
festival was celebrated even by the Jews, when they 
fell into idolatry (Ezechiel, VIII., 14). Each year, his 
death was indicated by public mourning, and his resur¬ 
rection by rejoicing. This fable was evidently an alle¬ 
gorical allusion to the periodical return of the spring¬ 
time after the winter season. Nevertheless, Drews dis¬ 
covered in it the foundation of the Gospel representa¬ 
tion of Jesus as the God-Man Saviour, dying for the 
sake of humanity, and resurrecting Himself to enter 
into glory. 

ATTACKS ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTI¬ 
MONY OF EVEN THE “HISTORICAL JESUS” 
ABOUT HIMSELF. 

Today, especially in Germany, there are open ene¬ 
mies of Our Divine Lord, who are more repulsive than 
those, who roundly deny the reality of Jesus. For, 
while the latter pretend, at least, to respect what they 
call “science,” the stock in trade of the former con¬ 
sists in a passionate denunciation of Jesus, which even 
the old Talmudists could never have surpassed. How 
the sentiment of the German people has deteriorated 
since the time, when Reimarus, who died in 1768, and 

?JSee Catkrein-Gettelmann, “Socialism,” New York, 1904, pages 204 et 
seq. Also art. “Socialism” in “The Oath. Encyc.” 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 149 

who told his friends privately that Jesus had been an 
impostor, did not dare to put forth his blasphemies 
in the publis press. 2 ^ Paulus, 25 who died in 1851, could 
only insinuate with apologetic gentleness that Jesus 
had permitted His followers to deceive themselves re¬ 
garding His supposed supernatural power of achieving 
the miraculous. Ferdinand Baur, 26 who died in 1860, 
limited himself to the thesis that Jesus was inferior to 
Paul in actual agency in the formation of Christianity. 
David Strauss, 27 who died in 1873, after having inaugu¬ 
rated the most general, and most persistent of all the 
attacks upon the Divine Sonship, nevertheless, re¬ 
stricted himself to the theory that the “Historical Je¬ 
sus” was a misdirected religious enthusiast, but of high 
spiritual character, and of great value in His precursor- 
ship to “the religion of humanity.” Renan 28 used the 
utmost diplomacy, and literary ability to introduce his 
theory that the belief of Jesus in His Divine Sonship 
was attained through a process of abnormal, and mys¬ 
tical exaltation of soul, which bordered upon insan¬ 
ity. We mention Renan in this connection, because 
of the relations, which existed between himself and 
Strauss, and of the consequent malign influence of 
Renan upon even German thought. Today, in the Ger¬ 
man Empire, there is no concealment of views like the 
foregoing. Nor is there any longer any moderation of 
language in their public profession. Nor is it enough 
to deny the credibility of the testimony of Jesus about 


g^Fillion, pages 9 et seq. 

25Fillion, pages 35 et seq. 

26Fillion, pages 95 et seq. 

27D F Strauss, “Das Leben Jesu,” “Tubingen, 1835 & 1836, 12th edition. 
’ Bonn 1902. Translated into French by E. Littrg, Paris, 1839. Trans¬ 
lated’into English by George Eliot, London, 1846. Published in Amer¬ 
ica at New York, 1850. Last English edition, London, 1898. See 
Fillion, pages 55 et seq.; and 125 et seq. 

2fiE Renan “Life of Jesus,” Eng. transl. Boston, 1896, Passim. See also, 
' LeDin op. cit., pages 204 et seq. Fillion, pages 116 et seq. See also 
J. McCosh, “Christianity and Positivism,” New York, 1871, pages 
220 et seq. 



150 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

Himself. No name is too vile for Him. No calumny 
is too odious. Detestable works like those of Von Hart¬ 
mann 29 can readily find both publishers, and readers. 
Indeed, the same can be said of writings more abomin¬ 
able than his. 39 It is hardly surprising to behold the 
spirit animating such productions in a disciple of Vol¬ 
taire like Gustave LeJeal. 31 But it is sad to watch it 
being evoked in England, and, even, in the United 
States. 32 However, every normally constituted man 
knows well that abuse is no argument. 

THE ACCUSATION THAT JESUS BORROWED HIS 
CONCEPTIONS OF HIS KINGSHIP, AND OF 

HIS JEHOVAHSHIP FROM THE TALMUD. 

During the first centuries of the Christian Era, 
and, also, during the last century, especially in France, 
Jewish, and other writers have pretended to discover 
that Jesus drew His moral doctrines, and, even, His 
conceptions of His Messianic Kingship, and of His Je- 
hovahship from the Talmud. 33 It behooves us, there¬ 
fore, to understand what is meant by the Talmud; and 
what possible groundwork may exist for the revival in 
modern times of the theory that Jesus borrowed His 
conceptions of His own character from the Talmud. As 
far as His moral code is concerned, its independent 
construction will be indirectly vindicated during the 
course of our remarks. The word '‘Talmud” (“instruc¬ 
tion,” “doctrine”) was first applied to what afterwards 


29E. von Hartmann, “Das Christenthums des N. J.” Lachea, 1905. See 
Fillion, page 245 & 246. 

30Fillion, 243 & 244. 

SiFillion, 259 et seq. 

32Fillion, 262 et seq. 

SSSee “Hebrew Lit.,” etc., pages 3 et seq. Also its translations from the 
Talmud, pages 43-290. Schottgen, “Horae Hebraicae et Talmud- 
icae,” Dresden, 1733-1742, as cited by Westcott, pages 141 et seq. 
H. Strack, “Einleitung in den Talmud,” Leipzig, 1908, pages 139 et 
seq. “The Jewish Encyc.” ; Johnson’s “Universal Cyclopedia” : “The 
Cath. Encyc.” ; and Fillion, pages 287-291. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 151 

was called the Mischna. Later, it was applied to the 
commentaries on the Mischna. These, in their turn, 
received the name of Gemara, which is the Aramaic 
equivalent of Talmud. The Palestinian Gemara was 
completed towards the close of the fourth century, 
while the Babylonian Gemara was not finished before 
the beginning of the sixth century. When 
the Mischna and the Gemara were no longer tran¬ 
scribed separately, the name “Talmud” was given to 
the work comprising both. Ordinarily, when the Jews 
of the present day refer to the Talmud, they mean the 
combination of the Mischna with the Babylonian Ge¬ 
mara. Indeed, from the sixth century onward, the 
Palestinian Gemara has never been held in as much 
esteem as the Babylonian one by Jews anywhere. Ac¬ 
cording to Jewish, and other anti-christian authorities, 
the Talmud is even yet of great value as an encyclope¬ 
dia of rabbinical Judaism. They add that the Re¬ 
formed Jews of the 19th and 20th centuries have acted 
unwisely in putting it aside. For, they say, it contains 
a digest of rules of discipline, and of ceremonial wor¬ 
ship, which remains as useful for the orthodox Jews of 
modern times, as for their distraught forefathers after 
the Dispersion in A. D. 132. They plead that it crys¬ 
tallizes the moral, social, and national life of an an¬ 
cient, and honorable people. Moreover, they affirm 
that, besides having contributed much to the teaching 
of Jesus, the origin of Christianity, and the compilation 
of the New Testament, it preserves the ancient, Jewish 
scientific attainments in mathematics, medicine, bo¬ 
tany, zoology, astronomy, history, geography, pedagog¬ 
ics, and ethics. However, Christian authorities, who 
have studied the Babylonian Gemara, which is chiefly 
in question in the foregoing laudatory description of the 
Talmud, tell us that the unexpurgated edition of the 


152 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

Babylonian Gemara was “an extraordinary monument 
of human industry, human wisdom, and human folly.” 
It was a jumble of all kinds of lore. Besides a hope¬ 
lessly entangled system of casuistry, it contained 
“teachings” on astrology, magic, demonology, fabulous 
angelology, and anthropomorphic theology, which all 
frequently, and formally contradicted the Old Testa¬ 
ment. But, on no topic was it more wild, or more con¬ 
fused, than on the question of the Messiah. 3 * In some 
places it asserted that the time of the coming of the 
Messiah had passed. Thus, for instance, He was said 
to have appeared on the day when the Temple was 
destroyed, but to have been carried away, in order to be 
revealed at some future date. Again, He was said to 
have been sitting, at the gates of Rome, in the time 
of Rabbi Joshua, or about A. D. 220. Yet, on the other 
hand, He was not to appear, until 7000 years had 
elapsed, or, perhaps, 4250 years, or, at least, 2000 
years. The length of His reign was, in different pas¬ 
sages, estimated at 40, 70, 1000, and 7000 years. In 
some places it was asserted that His Kingdom was to 
include the returned ten tribes of Israel, while, in other 
passages, this was denied. All the Gentiles were to be 
brought into it; but its precise nature was a subject 
of dispute. In some passages, the Messiah was por¬ 
trayed as a merely human king with a son, and a grand¬ 
son, while in others the Messiah was associated with 
God, and His name was given as “Jehovah, Our Jus¬ 
tice.” 

Its references to Our Blessed Lord 35 were horrible. 
The most opprobrious epithets were attached to His 
Holy Name. It was said that He was called the illegit¬ 
imate son of Joseph Pandira and of Mary. His mira- 


31 ,See “Ileb. Lit.,” pages 33-35 ; also Westccott, pages 141-144. 

SJSee “Heb. Lit.,” page 35. All attempts to conceal, or palliate this fact 
within recent years have utterly failed. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 153 

cles were imputed to sorcery, of which He brought the 
secret in a slit in His flesh, out of the dark land of 
Egypt. Forty days before His death, witnesses to His 
innocence were summoned by public proclamation, but 
none appeared. He was first stoned, and then hanged. 
His disciples were accused of immoral practices; and 
the New Testament was called a sinful book. It is no 
wonder that we have been unearthing the fact that the 
schoolmen of the 13th century, from William of Au¬ 
vergne, and Alexander of Hales to Duns Scotus, were 
zealous in publicly burning copies of the Talmud, as 
well as in prosecuting its propagators. They were ac¬ 
quainted with its contents, both from public disputa¬ 
tions with rabbis who were as courageous, as they we^e 
fanatical; and, likewise, from the work of the con¬ 
verted Jew of the 11th century, Peter Alfonsus. 36 

To come to the point, it is plain that Our Blessed- 
Lord could not have borrowed anything whatsoever 
from the written Talmud. Its basis, the Mischna, was 
not put into writing, until after the Dispersion, which 
occurred in A. D. 132. However, previously there had 
existed the Oral Mischna, or Original Talmud, which 
the Jews of the synagogues yet believe to have origin¬ 
ated with Moses himself, as the complement of the 
written Law. According to the Jewish historians, how¬ 
ever, this Mischna, or Talmud, descended down from 
the scribes of the time of Esdras. While the Temple 
was standing, they say, it was not lawful to write down 
this oral tradition, at least for public inspection. But, 
practically speaking, it was preserved as the teachings 
of those scribes of the Sanhedrim who joined the Phari¬ 
sees, in opposition to the new, and growing sect of 
Sadducees. This is a noteworthy statement. We have 


SSMigne, “Patrol. Lat.,” tome 157. See also Guttmann, “Die Scholastic,” 
etc., pages 132 & 133. 




154 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

already studied the character, of the official teaching 
of the Temple of the time of Our Blessed Lord about 
the Messiah. 37 It was the teaching of the scribes and 
the Pharisees of the Sanhedrim. The Gospels show 
their vile, and murderous attitude towards Jesus. The 
Gospels likewise show how severely, and constantly 
Jesus rebuked them. 58 Moreover, He repudiated their 
erroneous theory of One Person in One God. He sub¬ 
stituted the dogma of Three Persons in One God. As 
we are going to illustrate, He declared Himself the 
Second Person, the Son Incarnate, He supplanted their 
commentary on the Law with His own complement to 
it. He refuted their teachings about the Messiah, and 
about the Messianic Kingdom. In fine, it is certain 
that Jesus did not borrow even from the unwritten Tal¬ 
mud. 

THE MOST DANGEROUS OF ALL ATTACKS UPON 
GOSPEL TRUTH. 

We do not impute base motives, or devious meth¬ 
ods to the class of critics, to whose theories we again 
revert, and against whose theories the Gospel-Argu¬ 
ment is mainly directed. Thus, the theories of the 
class of critics in question may be said to have occa¬ 
sioned both the Prophecy-Argument, and the Gospel- 
Argument. Those critics are undoubtedly as conscien¬ 
tious, as they are learned. Nevertheless, as they them¬ 
selves frankly confess, their psychological vista ex¬ 
cludes the credibility of the Incarnation, as well as the 
possibility of the supernatural. The result is that 
their mode of treating the problem of the divinity 
claimed by Jesus is likely to produce a bad 
impression upon those, who have not had pre- 


37See Section I, ch. II. 

38See v. g. St. John, VIII; Luke, XI; and Matthew, XXII. 




Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 155 

vious knowledge of the processes, and of the involu¬ 
tions of “Higher Criticism.” From their point of view, 
those critics see no lack of logic in commencing with 
the consideration of the meaning of the declarations 
of Jesus, as they stand in the Gospels. For, they pre¬ 
suppose that their postulate of the unchangeableness 
of natural law will not be contradicted by an individual 
eminently truthful. Nor can they see any objection 
against first studying the most remarkable of the decla¬ 
rations of Jesus, or, in other words, the declarations 
of the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel. The tenor of these 
declarations convinces the critics in question that they 
cannot be authentic utterances of Jesus. The compa¬ 
rison of the Fourth Gospel with the Synoptics leads 
those critics to deny the value of that Gospel as a 
whole. They yet have the statements of Divine Son- 
ship in the Synoptics themselves to reckon with. But 
these statements are obviated by means of the sup¬ 
posed, original records of the “Primitive Mark,” and of 
the “Logia.” The upshot of all this is that the critics 
in question first try to explain the statements of Jesus 
about His own identity in some superhuman, but not 
strictly divine sense. Failing in this, those critics at¬ 
tack the authenticity of statements attributed to Jesus 
in the Gospels. They end by asserting that the state¬ 
ments in question are theological evolutions of primi¬ 
tive Christianity. Considered in itself and apart from 
its psychological antecedents, this procedure of the 
critics will not impress outsiders favorably. People in 
general ask to be assured that a person made a state¬ 
ment, before they call for the explanation of that state¬ 
ment. Moreover, when certain works are set over 
against some other work, those works are naturally 
supposed to be used, and retained as they stand, unless 
the contrary is not only presumed, but also plainly 


156 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


stated from the very beginning. Nevertheless, it must 
be admitted that we are about to consider the most 
dangerous of all attacks upon Gospel truth. 


DENIAL OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DE¬ 
CLARATIONS OF DIVINE SONSHIP OF 
JESUS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 

The class of critics in question is unanimous in 
denying the authenticity of the declarations of Divine 
Sonship, "which are attributed to the Jesus of the 
Fourth Gospel. Its members, however, disagree 
amongst themselves about the precise amount of his¬ 
torical foundation, which may be deemed to underlie 
the canonical Fourth Gospel. There are some, 39 who 
incline to the opinion that this Gospel is practically 
worthless, because they conclude that it was written 
by some Gentile, who assumed the name of St. John 
the Evangelist, in order to smuggle into the infant 
church a “romance” of Gnostic tendencies, in which 
“traditions” excerpted from the Synoptic Gospels are 
given an allegorical turn, while entirely fictitious dis¬ 
courses are attributed to the real, “Historical Jesus.” 
Others* 9 think that the Fourth Gospel was really writ¬ 
ten by St. John himself, and, consequently, has great 
value, inasmuchas expressive of what that Apostle be¬ 
lieved about Jesus. But the most influential of those 
critics^ oppose the testimony of the Fourth Gospel to 
the statements of Jesus, on the ground that those 
statements are contradictory to what the merely hu- 

3 . 9 Amongst others Jean Rgville, “Le quatri€me 6vangile,” Paris, 1901. 
^OBeyschlag, F. Blass, B. Weiss, Zahn, Sanday, James Drummond etc. 
See Fillion, pages 112 et seq.; 138 ; 149-151; 189-192. Also Lenin 
pages 406 & 407. 

pHarnack, H. J. Iloltzmann, Pfleiderer, Jiilicher, Wrede, P. W Schmie- 
del, O. Schmiedel, Wernle, etc. See Fillion, pages 143 et seq • 195 
et seq.; 293-295. ’ 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 157 

man Jesus of the Synoptics affirms about His own 
identity. They argue thus. 

The Synoptics are substantially historical. There¬ 
fore they are to be retained. Consequently, the fourth 
Gospel is to be pruned down to what it has in common 
with them; but, otherwise, it is not to be regarded. The 
contrast, in general, between the theatre, and character 
of events in the Synoptics, and in the fourth Gospel, is 
insisted upon. At length, and in detail, the supposed 
opposition between the moral discourses of Jesus in the 
Synoptics, and the metaphysical, and theological dis¬ 
cussions, in the fourth Gospel, is pointed out. More¬ 
over, against both historicity, and authenticity of the 
fourth Gospel, it is affirmed that its language is at 
variance, not only with that of the Synoptics, but also 
with that of the Apocalypse. Likewise, it is affirmed 
that there are geographical, historical, and chronolog¬ 
ical inaccuracies in the fourth Gospel, which, conse¬ 
quently, could not have been written by a Galilaean 
Jew, or by any immediate follower of Jesus, because 
such a one would have been better informed. This in¬ 
ference is confirmed by the fact that the word, “Jew,” 
in that work is almost equivalent to enemy of Jesus, 
while the “feasts of the Jews,” and the “passover of 
the Jews” are alluded to with disdain. But the crown¬ 
ing argument against the direct Johannine authorship 
is this. A conscientious writer could not make a man 
pose as a God. But John was a conscientious man. 
Therefore, John did not write the Fourth Gospel, at 
least, in its present form. Besides, he could not have 
done so. He died shortly after A. D. 68, when he fin¬ 
ished the Apocalypse. But the Fourth Gospel did not 
make its appearance before A.D. 80, and, most probably, 
not before A. D. 100. Moreover, tradition is against its 
Johannine authorship. Polycarp, the disciple of St. 


158 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

John, never alluded to any Gospel written by the latter. 
Nor did Papias, another disciple. Justin did not seem 
to be aware of any existing belief in such authorship. 
Nor the author of the Clementine Epistles. The appar¬ 
ent references by these two authorities to the gospel 
itself may be explained by their possession of some 
original document, upon which the extant Fourth Gos¬ 
pel may have been more or less dependant. The pas¬ 
sages in the Ignatian Epistles, which seem to be some¬ 
what free citations from the Fourth Gospel, appear to 
be spurious. Tatian does not seem to have used it in 
his harmony of the Gospels. The heretic Marcion did 
not know of its existence. Nor did the authors of the 
apocryphal gospels of James, and of Thomas. The 
Alogoi rejected it. 

ANSWER TO THE OBJECTIONS AGAINST ST. 

JOHN’S GOSPEL. 

For our part, we readily admit that the Synoptic 
Gospels are in a class by themselves. But we deny 
any clash between their subject-matter, and the con¬ 
tents of the Fourth Gospel. For good reasons, as will 
be later manifested, we waive here the consideration 
of the contention that the Synoptics treat of a merely 
human Jesus; and we simply indicate the evident prin¬ 
ciple of convergence between them and the last Gos¬ 
pel. It is this. That Gospel is the complement of the 
others. It presupposes in its readers a previous ac¬ 
quaintance with them.4 2 Moreover, it evidently opens 
with the doctrine, to which St. John, if he be its au¬ 
thor, is to add the final, apostolic testimony. “In the 
beginning was the Word,” “and the Word was God,” 
“and the Word was made flesh.” At the solicitation of 


See v. g. ch. I, 15, 32 ; III, 24 ; XVIII, 33, etc. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 159 

the brethren in Asia, its author wrote, both to oppose 
Cerinthus, and the Ebionites, and, likewise, to con¬ 
firm the faithful in the belief that “Jesus is the Christ, 
the Son of God” (ch. XX., 31). Cerinthus adopted the 
notion of the “Logos,” obtaining in the incipient Gnos¬ 
ticism around him, according to which the “Logos,” or 
Superior Christ, or highest of the “Aeons,” or imper¬ 
sonal emanations from a Transcendent Godhead, at the 
Baptism in the Jordan, had descended into the Lower 
Christ, or Human Christ; and at the Crucifixion, had 
departed from the latter. The Ebionites, who attacked 
the divinity of Jesus, appear to have also imbibed this 
Gnostic notion of the “Logos.” The author of the 
Fourth Gospel undertook to combat this notion.* 3 He 
opposed it with the sublime doctrine of the “Logos” 
in the Christian sense, the basis for which he found in 
the Old Testament, particularly in Wisdom, and in 
Ecclesiasticus.** There is not the slightest foundation 
for the theory* 5 that the author of the Fourth Gospel 
was moved in any way whatsoever by Philo’s concep¬ 
tion of the “Logos.” Having posited the doctrine of 
the “Logos,” which confuted heresy, and illumined 
Christian belief, he brought forth, in confirmation of 
that doctrine, the discourses of Jesus Himself at Jeru¬ 
salem. By setting them in their historical environ¬ 
ment of time and place, he left no opening to internal 
criticism of his work, on the suspicion of the introduc¬ 
tion of artificial compositions of his own. Since these 
discourses, attributed to Jesus, were uttered in sur¬ 
roundings different from those of the discourses of 


.JSSee Didon, vol. I, Introd. XXI & XXII. 
i$See Lepin, pages 100 & 101. 

f5The Theory of J. R6ville, and his school. Max Muller, “Theosophy,” 
London, 1893, “Preface,” and Passim, had somewhat similar hal¬ 
lucinations. So, likewise, has Harnack, “What is Christ,” page 218. 
Loisy has come out flatly for RSville’s standpoint. See Lepin, page 
395. On Philo, see Spiegler, pages 54 et seq. Also E. Baird, “The 
Evolution of Theology,” etc. Glasgow, 1904, vol. II, pages 184, et 
seq. 



160 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

Jesus in the Synoptics, there is no good reason for an a 
priori opinion that there must necessarily be an antag¬ 
onism between the declarations of Jesus of the Synop¬ 
tics, and those of Jesus of the Fourth Gospel. Nor 
can any critic rightly read into the latter any abstract 
metaphysics, or theological speculations. It is plain 
that Jesus is simply attesting the facts of His inner 
consciousness, and translating them into human 
speech. He is directly stating His pre-existence, eter¬ 
nity, community of essence with the Father, and equal¬ 
ity with the Father, inasrnuchas He is the Second Per¬ 
son of the Trinity. He is affirming that He was made 
flesh for the salvation of mankind. 

No doubt there is a difference between the lan¬ 
guage of the Apocalypse and the language of the Fourth 
Gospel. Yet, it is at least a working hypothesis that 
the one, and same author could have produced both 
works, provided that he had written Apocalypse in his 
prime, and, 30 years afterwards, in another environ¬ 
ment, and with a better knowledge of Greek, he had 
written the Fourth Gospel. Moreover, he could have 
been a Galilean Jew, writing for the Gentiles, at a time 
when the Jewish race was hardly known in Asia Minor, 
excepting as a foreign, and hostile sect. That the 
author of the Fourth Gospel did write for the Gentiles, 
is proven by his explanations of Jewish expressions, 
and customs.* 6 That he was a Jew, is proven by the 
knowledge which he displayed of Jewish affairs before 
the fall of Jerusalem, as well as by peculiarities of 
phraseology. Moreover, his reputed geographical, his¬ 
torical, and chronological inaccuracies are found to van¬ 
ish before a sound exegesis.* 7 Besides, if he wrote some 

J,6v. g. ch. X, 1-16, 22, 23 etc. See Comely, “Comp.” page 503; Seisen- 
berger, pages 394 & 397 ; and Batiffol, pages 10 et seq. and 58 et seq. 
h 7v. g- regarding Caiphas, XI, 49, and XVIII, 13 ; and Sychar, IV, 5, and 
Betliania, I, 28. See Comely, pages 502 & 503; and Seisenberger, 
page 395. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 161 


BO years after Jerusalem and the Temple had been de¬ 
stroyed, and as a Christian of many years’ standing, 
it would have been quite natural for him to refer to 
“Jew,” and “feasts of the Jews,” and the like, just as 
the Fourth Gospel does do. Moreover, from the stand¬ 
point of internal criticism alone this gospel should be 
recognized as the work of one hand. Therefore, as far 
as that standpoint in itself is concerned, there is no 
justification for any attempt to expunge accounts of 
miracles, or ch. IV. on the Samaritan woman, or V., 
4 or VII., 53—VIII., 11 or XI. on Lazarus or XXI., 
1-25.* 8 

In fine, John, the Apostle, we are told, was an 
honest man. This is well said. Therefore, if he wrote 
the Fourth Gospel, it must be veracious. But an honest 
man would not make another man pose as a God. Very 
true. But what about the possibility, at least, of the 
God-Man? What about the possibility of St. John's 
record of the testimony of the God-Man about Him¬ 
self ? Where is the logic in arbitrarily shutting off the 
vision of what may be facts ? The author of the Fourth 
Gospel did not call himself St. John, the Apostle. But 
he sufficiently designated himself such by identifying 
himself with the “beloved disciple” of the Synoptics.* 9 
St. John could, and did write the Fourth Gospel. He did 
not die shortly after A. D. 68. History teaches us that 
he died, sometime between 100 and 117, during the 
reign of Trajan. 59 He wrote his Gospel about the year 
100. 5i The critics would hardly quarrel about this date 
for the origin of the work. 

It is strange, however, to find them appealing to 


48See Comely, pages 503 & 504 ; Seisenberger, page 391; Didon, vol. II. 
Append. E and O ; and expert testimony in Resp. Com. de Re. Bibl., 
Mav 29, 3 907 in Benzinger-Bunnwart, 1911, pages 580 & 581. 

49Ch. I, 14 & 35 ; XIII, 23 ; XIX, 26 ; XX, 2 ; XXI, 24. 

50 See Comely, pages 498 & 499 ; and Seisenberger, pages 393 & 397. 
oJSee “C-hristus,” pages 739 et seq.; and Le Camus, vol. I, pages 46 et 
seq. 



162 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

the tradition of the second century for arguments 
against the authorship of St. John’s Gospel. The Alo- 
goi, an obscure, Phrygian sect about the year 170, did 
oppose St. John’s Gospel, but precisely because it had 
previously been received amongst the orthodox as the 
work of St. John. The two apocryphal gospels, 
which are mentioned by the critics, could not 
have cited other canonical gospels than those 
of St. Matthew, and St. Luke. For, the one 
attributed to St. James, ends with the relation 
of the slaughter of the Innocents by Herod. 
The other, which is probably the most fantastic of all 
the apocryphal gospels, ends with the account of the 
early boyhood of Jesus. If, however, it is to be in¬ 
stanced, let its beginning likewise be noted. “I, Thomas, 
an Israelite, judged it necessary to make known to our 
brethren among the Gentiles the actions, and miracles 
of Christ in His childhood, which Our Lord, and God, 
Jesus Christ wrought” etc. Indeed, all the other apo¬ 
cryphal gospels are also strenuous, and persistent in af¬ 
firming that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. When one 
comes to reflect on it, perhaps those works do merit 
more attention. They must have had some basis of 
historical truth; and they were in circulation in many 
places, during the third, and the fourth centuries. 52 
Further, from competent authorities, we learn that 
Marcion not only knew of the Gospel by St. John, but 
also preserved part of it in his own work. Tatian did 
use it. So did St. Justin. We are not much concerned 
in discovering whether the authors of the Clementine, 
and of the Ignatian Epistles cited from the Fourth Gos¬ 
pel, or not. Nor does it make any difference whether 
Polycarp, or Papias had reason to mention it, or not. 

52See “The Apocryphal New Testament,” American Edition, Boston, De 
Wolfe, Fiske & Co., especially pages 1 et seq.; 6 et seq.: and 31 et 
seq. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 163 

It suffices that St. Irenaeus, the disciple of Poly carp, 
gave his irrefutable testimony during the lifetime of 
Polycarp, 53 who did not contradict it. Moreover, it is a 
fact of history, that, before the year 140, the Fourth 
Gospel, as now extant in the Vulgate, had been recog¬ 
nized as the work of St. John, the Apostle, by the 
Church at Rome, as well as everywhere else. Hence, 
its reproduction of the declarations of Jesus should be 
deemed absolutely reliable. 

DENIAL THAT JESUS OF THE SYNOPTIC GOS¬ 
PELS CALLED HIMSELF THE INCAR¬ 
NATE SON OF GOD. 

As has been previously intimated, the class of 
critics, whose line of reasoning we are considering, are 
very much interested in upholding the “Historical 
Jesus” of the Synoptics against the “Ecclesiastical Je¬ 
sus” of St. John's Gospel. They assert that the “Histo¬ 
rical Jesus” never pretended that He is the Second 
Person of the Trinity, who was made flesh. They found 
this assertion upon the “substantial historical accu¬ 
racy” of the Synoptic Gospels. They say that Jesus 
proclaimed Himself inferior to God. He admitted His 
own imperfections. “Why callest thou me good ? None 
is good but one, that is God.” (Mark, X., 18). He had 
soul-racking moments of weakness, as in the garden, 
at the thought of the chalice before Him, and on the 
Cross, at the thought His abandonment by the Father. 
He had His physical pangs of hunger, thirst, fatigue, 
and pain. He had His mental limitations. Thus, He 
confessed His ignorance about the time of the Day of 
Doom. Moreover, as they add, He was mistaken about 
the supposed proximity of His final advent, as well as 


53 See Comely, pages 500 & 501; and Seisenberger, pages 394, 395. 



164 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


about the character of His Kingdom.-^ He prayed to the 
Father, like any other human suppliant. He attrib¬ 
uted His extraordinary privileges, and powers to the 
Father. He dutifully commended His Soul to His 
Maker. He likewise declared Himself the Son of God, 
but, either because of His realization of His excep¬ 
tional relationship to the Father through a Messiah- 
ship of a superhuman kind, or, better still, because of 
His conviction of unparalleled intimacy with the 
Father. But, He never called Himself the Son of God 
in the sense, that He is One of a Divine Trinity, who, 
remaining God, became Man also. 55 When such a state¬ 
ment is apparently attributed to Him, it must be 
judged to be an “insertion” into the primitive text of 
the Synoptics. 56 Yet, since these Synoptics have “sub¬ 
stantial historical accuracy,” such an “insertion” must 
be a minor, and accidental inaccuracy. Most of us, 
however, would draw a different conclusion. 

There is hardly any need for us to discern truth 
from error in the foregoing assertions of the critics. 
We may admit that Jesus had a Human Nature. We 
deny that He pictured Himself as merely human. M. 
Lepin, 57 in a work written for that very purpose, has 
demonstrated that the Synoptics, independently of the 
Fourth Gospel, make Jesus declare, and prove Himself 
the Incarnate Son of God. But, here and now, we wish 
to learn from “Higher Criticism” why the “substan¬ 
tial, historical accuracy” of the Synoptics should be 
supposed to replace their complete, historical accuracy. 
In other words, what is the supposed, scientific canon 

5.'/See refutations of these theories in Lepin, pages 425 et seq. 

55Harnack, “What is Christ,” pages 137, 139 & 140. See Lepin, pages 
271 et seq. 

56Harnack, pages 156 & 157. Loisy accepts this, and the other views of 
the school of Harnack. See Lepin, pages 290-295, 299-305 ; 320 & 
321 ; 364 & 365 ; 485 et seq. and 530 et seq. Also Pillion, pages 217 
et seq. 

57“Christ and the Gospel,” etc. See especially pages 306 et seq.; 320 et 
seq.; 336 et seq.; and 380. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 165 

for excluding from those gospels certain declarations 
of Jesus, together with the “Gospel of the Infancy” 58 , 
and all accounts of the miraculous ? We are told that it 
is conformity with the original records of the words, 
and of the deeds of Jesus, which have been discovered 
during the investigation of the “Synoptic Problem.” 
However, this answer cannot satisfy an unbiassed stu¬ 
dent of the Bible. Since about 1850 rationalists have 
exercised themselves over the question of the relation¬ 
ship of the first three Gospels to one another. In con¬ 
sequence, three well-known, and antagonistic solutions 
of that problem came to light. The first was that of 
“inter-dependence.” This meant that the Synoptics 
were copied from one another. There were as many 
varieties of this solution, as there were possible orders 
of the three Gospels. The second solution was that 
of “the primitive, written gospel.” There were as 
many divergences of opinion within this solution, as 
there were possible revisions, and evolutions of the 
supposed, original manuscript, previous to the extant 
differentiations into the three Gospels, as they now 
exist. The third solution was that of the “two, main, 
written sources” of these Gospels, or the “Logia,” and 
the “Primitive Mark.” All these solutions were erro¬ 
neous, as we shall prove. Nevertheless, the last of 
them is what, at the present time, is offered by Har- 
nack, B. Weiss, A. Jiilicher, and that whole school, as 
the sufficient reason for the curtailment of the Synop¬ 
tics, in the name of “Higher Criticism.” In conse¬ 
quence, Loisy, and the other Modernists also cling to 
this third solution of the Synoptic Problem.” 

58Matthew I & II; and Luke, I & II. These chapters of these two Gos¬ 
pels were said to contain “pious legends” by Renan. In them, ac¬ 
cording to Harnack, are “useless accretions,” and, according to Loisy, 
evolutions of beliefs of the primitive church. Lepin, pages 107 et 
seq. upholds the “Gospel of the Infancy” by means of internal evi¬ 
dence. 



166 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

DEFENCE OF THE HISTORICITY OF THE CANON¬ 
ICAL, SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 

Certainly, there is a striking similarity 59 between 
the Synoptic Gospels. In regard to subject-matter, 
they confine themselves almost exclusively, to the his¬ 
tory of the sayings, and of the doings of Our Blessed 
Lord in Galilee, together with the account of His Pas¬ 
sion, and of His Resurrection. Their contents are 
nearly parallel, although there are changes in their re¬ 
spective orders. Their style, and language are similar. 
Sometimes their wording is identical. Their Greek is 
stilted, meagre in vocabulary, and suggestive of Hebra¬ 
isms. Yet, they could not have been copied from one 
another, because there is too much variation in detail. 
There is no historical basis for the theory of a primi¬ 
tive, written gospel. Comely, however, and many others, 
think that there was a Primitive, Oral Gospel, agreed 
upon by the Apostolic preachers in a general way as a 
sort of common formula for the instruction of converts 
to Christianity. 60 As just intimated, each one of the 
Synoptics had its own aim, and method, and, hence, 
greater, or lesser amount of distinctive arrangement, 
and stamp. The first Gospel was originally written in 
Chaldais, or Aramaic. It has more citations from 
the Old Testament, than are found in the 
other Synoptics. Some of these citations are rendered 
from the Hebrew, whereas in the other Synoptics the 
Septuagint was used exclusively. What relation this 
first Gospel had to the “Gospel according to the He¬ 
brews,” of which fragments remain in existence, is 


590n the futility of accusing the writers of the Synoptics of contradict¬ 
ing one another on various points, see Comely, pages 494 et seq. 
G0For general views of the Synoptics, see “Christus,” pages 681 et seq.; 
Didon, vol. I, “Introduction” ; Le Comus, vol. I, pages 18 et seq. See 
also B. Westcott, “An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels,” 
London, 1888, pages 165 et seq. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 167 

not known. If these fragments are the distorted relics 
of some anterior document, it would complicate the 
matter. But, if they supervene as representative parts 
of an original whole, certainly, the “Gospel according to 
the Hebrews” 61 never could have had anything to do 
with the Aramaic text of the first Gospel, as its mean¬ 
ing is gleaned through the Greek version. The Ara¬ 
maic text itself fell into disuse very early. Some think 
that it was allowed to perish, because corrupted by he¬ 
retical, Jewish converts. But the Greek version, made 
by some, unknown author, goes back to the Apostolic 
Age. 

Moreover, the first Gospel had no relation with 
the “Logia,” as understood by Harnack, and his school, 
for the precise reason that there never was any “Lo¬ 
gia” in that sense. Their theory is based upon a pas¬ 
sage in Eusebius, 62 which hands down a statement of 
Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Phrygia during the first 
half of the second century. It reads as follows: “And 
this also the Elder said: Mark, having become the in¬ 
terpreter of Peter, wrote accurately all that he remem¬ 
bered of the things that were either said, or done by 
Christ; but, however, not in order. For he neither 
heard the Lord, nor followed Him; but, subsequently, 
as I have said, Peter, who was accustomed to frame 
his teaching to meet the immediate wants, but not as 
making a connected narrative of Our Lord’s discour¬ 
ses .... Matthew wrote the logia in Hebrew, and each 
one interpreted them as he could.” In this passage, 
according to the critics, there is reference to the “Pri¬ 
mitive Mark,” as well as to “the Logia” produced by 
the Apostle, Matthew. But the special inference to be 
drawn, according to their view, is that the original 


6lSee these fragments in Westcott pages 466 et seq. 

62“Hist. Eccles.,” Ill, 39. See also II, 15 cited in Kirch page 249. 



168 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


Gospel of St. Matthew, which has been replaced by the 
first Gospel of the New Testament, was a mere collec¬ 
tion of the discourses of Our Lord. The whole argu¬ 
ment rests upon the meaning of “ ra Aoyia” “the 
Logia,” which St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, or, 
in other words, as all admit, in Aramaic. If, in the 
extract from Papita, the word “ Aoyia ” does not 
signify exclusively “speeches,” or “discourses,” the 
theory of the critics vanishes. But it does not so 
signify, either in the four places 63 in the New Testa¬ 
ment, wherein it occurs, and wherein it applies to the 
Divine Revelations of God through His Holy Scrip¬ 
tures; or in passages in the Clementine Epistles, Ire- 
naeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origin; 6 ^ or in the 
mind of Papias, who transferred the name “Logia” 
from an appellation of the Old Testament into a similar 
designation for the Gospels, and, who, moreover, called 
his own work “AoyiW KvpuxKu>v e^y^o-t? ”, although its 
scope was not limited to the treatment of Our 
Lord’s discourses; or in the mind of Eusebius, who 
plainly understood “the Logia” of Matthew of the Gos¬ 
pel of St. Matthew of his day, and of our own. If 
Papias had put “ \6yoi ” for “ A.oyiathere might 
have been some plausibility to the argument of the 
critics, although, even in that case, they would have had 
some difficulty in showing why no historical evidence 
of such a fundamentally important treatise, as that 
of the “Logia,” had ever been discovered. 65 It is true 
that, at London, in 1897, Grenfell, and Hunt published 
a “Logia Jesou,” which they had found in the course 
of excavations in Egypt. But it turned out to be no 
more than one leaf, 6 by 3*4 inches, containing only 

SJActs, VII, 38; Rom. Ill, 2; Heb., V, 12; and I Peter IV 11 
64“Patres Apostolic!,” Ed. Funk, II, 280; and Lightfoot, “Contemporary 
Review,” Aug., 1875, page 399. 

65Resp. Com. de Re. Bibl., June 26, 1912 : “The Cath. Encyc.,” art. “Lo¬ 
gia Jesu” ; and Berry, pages 254-256. 




Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 169 

six phrases, and the beginning of a seventh. It is now 
supposed that these apocryphal “sayings of Jesus” 
were an extract from the so-called “Gospel of the Egyp¬ 
tians.” In 1904, the same scholars, at Oxyrhynchus, 
found some more apocryphal “Logia,” but altogether 
insignificant. 66 

Moreover, Eusebius not only had the first Gospel, 
as now extant, but also collected sufficient evidence 
to plainly prove that St. Matthew was the author of 
its Aramaic text. 67 Further, its contents show that 
it was written before the fall of the Temple, and for 
the Jewish converts in Palestine. Its aim was to esta¬ 
blish the Messiahship of Jesus; and we have seen that 
the Messiahship foretold in the Old Testament neces¬ 
sarily connoted the Divine Sonship. Its aim settled 
its scope, as well as its exemption, to a certain extent 
(ch. IV.-XIV.), from rigid chronological order. There¬ 
fore, it should be taken precisely as it is, facts, dis¬ 
courses, and all. 68 Indeed, some of its discourses of 
Our Blessed Lord are similar to what is found in St. 
John’s Gospel. 69 

We have already referred to the supposition of 
Harnack, and of critics of like tendences, that Papias 
mentioned their supposed “Primitive Mark.” How¬ 
ever, their chief reliance in this regard is in internal 
criticism of the Synoptics themselves. They claim to 
find two parallel accounts beneath those Gospels, as 
they now are, the one, a narrative of events in the 
life of Jesus, the other, the “Logia.” The narrative of 
events, as they say, was preserved in the framework 
of the canonical Gospel ascribed to St. Mark. We 
cannot asperse their profound, but misdirected scholar- 


66See Le Camus, vol. I, pages 54 & 55, wherein the “Logia Jesou” are 
cited ; also, Seisenberger, page 370 ; also Westcott, pages 457-465. 
67See v. g. Seisenberg, pages 367 & 368. 

68Resp. Corn, de Re Bibl., June 19, 1911. 

6'.9v. g! Matthew, XII, 14-37 ; XXI, 23-46 ; XXII, 35-46 ; XXVIII, 18-20. 



170 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


ship. However, there seems no need to go into further 
details about their supposed findings in favor of the 
two-source theory. 70 Their notion about the “Logia” 
has been seen to be erroneous. Their notion about the 
“Primitive Mark,” as the original written Gospel, is 
opposed to the unanimous tradition of the first fourth 
centuries of Christianity, 71 as well as to the already 
mentioned decisions of the experts on the Biblical Com¬ 
mission. Tradition says, and internal evidence confirms 
it, that St. Mark wrote the second canonical Gospel at 
Rome, at the request of the Gentile converts, who de¬ 
sired a keep-sake of what St. Peter had preached. 
But he wrote in Greek, so that St. Peter could under¬ 
stand, and approve of the work. 72 Doubtless, St. Mark 
likewise rendered it into Latin afterwards, at least, 
orally. Its aim is indicated at the very beginning. (I., 
1-15). Jesus, the Son of God, as proclaimed at His 
Baptism, is to be proven by His deeds, rather than by 
His words, the Divine Founder of the Kingdom of God. 
It opens with the words—“The beginning of the gospel 
of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Is it not strange 
that the critics are so fond of this Gospel, and so eager 
to oppose St. John's Gospel with it, in preference to 
the other Synoptics? Moreover, especially in chapter 
XII., it affords important discourses of the Lord, of a 
tenor similar to those in St. John. Further, apart from 
the gratuitous criterion, derived from a misinterpreta¬ 
tion of some words of Papias, they have plausible rea¬ 
son, for cutting away anything from St. Mark's Gos¬ 
pel, excepting the last twelve verses, which, however, 
the Church upholds. 


70See Fillion, pages 154 et seq., 166 et seq.; and 172 et seq.; also Lepin, 
pages 20 et seq.; 47, and 436. 

7lSee v. g. Seisenberger, pages 377 & 37S; and Resp. Com. de Re Bibl.. 
June 26, 1912. 

720n the authenticity of Mark, XVI, 9-20, see Seisenberger, pages 382 & 
383. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 171 

^According to the Muratorian Fragment, the third 
canonical Gospel, which opens with the account of the 
nativity of John the Baptist, was written by Luke, 
a medical man, and a companion of St. Paul. The Mura¬ 
torian Fragment, which was written at Rome, or in its 
vicinity, about A. D. 180, is the surviving, and nearly 
complete portion of the oldest known list of the New 
Testament Books. Hence, its authority is necessarily 
weighty. Moreover, there is an abundance of ancient 
testimony corroborative of its statements about St. 
Luke, and his Gospel. Yet, Harnack, 7 * who admits the 
authorship of St. Luke, with of course, dependence on 
the “primitive Mark,” and on the “Logia,” bitterly at¬ 
tacks the Gospel itself, not only in its first, two chap¬ 
ters, but also everywhere else, wherein the supernat¬ 
ural, or miraculous is related, and wherein the Divine 
Sonship is pre-supposed. Wernle 75 says that, with a 
few, minor exceptions, what the third Gospel adds to 
Mark, is without value for the history of Jesus. H. 
Holtzmann 76 says that this Gospel contains a manifold 
revision of the teachings of Jesus. He doubts that St. 
Luke was its author. However, while it may be useful 
to be aware of what such critics have to tell us, we see 
that they are giving us their personal opinions. More¬ 
over, these opinions dwindle down into nothing in pres¬ 
ence of the certain testimony of antiquity against 
them. 77 Doubtless, these same opinions would have 
been modified, if the intention of St. Luke to demon¬ 
strate that the Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, is 
the Incarnate Son of God, had not been so fully mani- 


73 See copy in Kirch, “Enchiridion,” pages 86-88. See also “The Cath. 

Encyc.,” art. “Muratorian Canon.” 

7^See Fillion, pages 173 et seq. 

75Fillion, page 178. 

76Fillion, page 156; also Lepin, page 22. 

77See Cornelv, pages 477 et seq.; Seisenberger, pages 383 et seq. Resp. 
Com. de Re Bibl., .Tune 26, 1012. 



172 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

tested in his Gospel. He introduced 78 five miracles, 
and twelve parables, which were not mentioned in the 
two, previous Gospels of Sts. Matthew, and Mark. He 
recorded sayings of Jesus, 79 which imply His divinity. 
Such things, according to Harnack, are signs of “colos¬ 
sal credulity/' and of “superficial theology." St. Luke 
related that the birth of Jesus coincided with a general 
census ordered by Augustus, and carried out in Syria 
by Quirinius. Hence, because there is nothing said 
about this census, in the Roman historians, St. Luke 
is accused of making a grave error of fact, especially 
since a general census of the Roman Empire, as we are 
told, would not then have extended to Judaea. Renan 
was especially strong on this point. However, it has 
been established by indirect, Roman, historical data 
that St. Luke was right in the matter. 89 Besides, at 
the very beginning of his Gospel, (I., 1-4), he solemnly 
testified that he repeated nothing that had not been 
handed down by those, who “were eye-witnesses, and 
ministers of the word." 

In fine, the declarations of Jesus about Himself 
in the Synoptic Gospels, and, likewise, in St. John's 
Gospel, must all be received as authentic. They must 
be interpreted as they stand. The Gospel records are 
not historically assailable. Even without invoking the 
testimony of the Church, the Gospel of St. John, as 
well as the Synoptics, can be demonstrated to be au¬ 
thentic, integral, and veracious. All consequently, are 
trustworthy in their extant form. Making due allow¬ 
ance for unimportant slips in transcription, and at¬ 
tempted correction, the text of the Vulgate 8 -* must be 

78See Didon, vol. I, “Introduction,” XVI, for enumeration and location in 
Gospel. 

79Ch. VI, 5 ; VII, 48 ; XXIV, 25, 26, 46, & 47, and the like. 

80See Didon, vol. II, pages 395 et seq.: also Le Camus, vol. I, pages 181 
et seq. 

8 lSee F. A. Gasquet, “Vulgate, Revision of,” in “The Cath. Encyc.” 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 173 

admitted to go back to the time of St. Jerome. More¬ 
over, since 1907, the Benedictines have been engaged in 
revising that text, in accordance with the sound rules 
of textual criticism. If only from the innumerable, ac¬ 
companying citations, references, and translations de¬ 
scending back to the fourth century, we know before¬ 
hand that no change of any essential character will be 
effected in the reading of the Vulgate, particularly in 
regard to the declarations of Jesus. These, at least, 
have been preserved unmutilated with the most zeal¬ 
ous, and loving care. Amongst all impartial critics, it 
is admitted that the original text of St. Jerome’s work 
is the absolutely necessary basis of any extended, and 
critical revision of the Gospels, inasmuchas as he had 
access to many manuscripts, which have, long since 
disappeared. Amongst others, he had a Latin version, 
of the Bible inclusive of the four Gospels, which, as he 
affirmed, had come down to him “from the first days 
of the Faith.” 


CHAPTER II. 


Proof of the Minor Premise of the 
Gospel-Argument. 

FIRST POINT. JESUS AS PRESENTED IN THE 
GOSPELS THE TRULY HISTORICAL JESUS. 

DECISIVE PROOF THE TESTIMONY OF 
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. 

The testimony of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apos¬ 
tolic, Roman Church is the decisive, final, and absolute 
proof that the Gospel records of the life, labors, works, 
and declarations of Jesus are historically sound, and 
present Our Blessed Lord precisely as He was, acted, 
and talked, during His earthly sojourn. It is well to 
show that the four Gospels are authentic, veracious 
and integral, both by means of internal criticism of 
their contents, and, likewise, by means of preserved 
references, and citations of writers of the first, two 
centuries of the Christian Era. Inasmuchas it signi¬ 
fies, at least, the practical overthrow of our opponents 
upon ground of their own choosing, this kind of argu¬ 
mentation has its own value. But, after all, the only 
infallible criterion for everything concerning the Gos¬ 
pels, is the testimony of the Catholic Church. Those 
critics, to whom we accord ultimate consideration, ad¬ 
mit that Jesus lived, taught, and died upon the Cross. 
They admit that He did not write. 1 They admit that 

lOn the imaginary letter of Jesus to Abgar, Kig of Edessa, see “The 
Apocryphal N. J.” pages 32 & 33. See also “The Cath. Encyc.,” art. 
“Abgar.’’ 





Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 175 

He orally committed His teachings, inclusive of His 
declarations about Himself, to a chosen band of dis¬ 
ciples, to whom alone He freely explained His private, 
and public utterances. They admit that, if it weie 
possible to reproduce exactly, and solely, what Jesus 
said to His selected companions, there could be no 
doubt on what He taught about His own character. 
Why should not such a thing be deemed possible? 
Why could not the disciples hear, remember, and tran¬ 
smit, at least, the essential declarations of Jesus abo «t 
Himself ? Before they were scattered to the uttermost 
parts of the earth, the disciples of Jesus, the eleven, 
at least, were gathered together, at Jerusalem. They 
remained the same men, physically, as before the Re¬ 
surrection, or, for the sake of argument here, let us 
say the re-appearance of Jesus, real, or supposed. No 
one can reasonably claim that the eleven all became af¬ 
flicted with hallucinations, or superadded, religious de¬ 
lusions about the supernatural character of their Mas¬ 
ter, during the time, which immediately followed on the 
sad, and distressing, and terrible event of the Crucifix- 
ionT~ During the next fifty days, they, frightened, and 
bewildered though they were, could not possibly have 
forgotten the principal statements, which Jesus had 
made to them about Himself. Indeed, it is evident that 
they constantly discussed those statements. It is 
equally evident that, before going forth to preach Jesus 
Crucified, they unanimously agreed upon the precise 
meanings of those statements. Moreover, it is an in¬ 
disputable fact, that, despite suffering and martyrdom, 
they unanimously preached everywhere that Jesus Cru¬ 
cified is the Incarnate Son of God. Can it reasonably 
be imagined that, after their dispersion over 
the earth, and consequent separation from one an¬ 
other, the whole of the Apostles became simultane- 


176 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

ously, but unconsciously, self-deluded into a belief in 
the Resurrection, and, consequently, in the divinity of 
Jesus? By no means. There is no logical method of 
escape from the conclusion that they preached the 
Divine Sonship, because they had all become absolutely 
convinced that Jesus had declared it to them. More¬ 
over, these first Christian preachers, the friends of 
Jesus Himself, were strictly bound to see that their im¬ 
mediate successors in the apostolic succession changed 
nothing, and added nothing, as far as the tradition of 
the teaching of Jesus was concerned. Since this teach¬ 
ing of Jesus covered organization, as well as doctrine, 
dogmatic, and moral, it follows that the Apostolic Age 
truly represented original Christianity. 

Harnack, 2 however, propounds a theory to the 
contrary, and in a rather insidious manner. He says 
that the Roman Catholic Church should be conceded 
to go back to the Apostolic Church, and, even, to the 
“Church of Jesus” Himself. Nevertheless, it is essen¬ 
tially different from both, particularly from the latter, 
the primary reason being that there is an impassable 
chasm between the “Church of Jesus” and the Church 
of the Apostolic Age. For, at that period, and at var¬ 
ious other times up to about A. D. 250, there were 
ushered in essential deviations of belief, and of consti¬ 
tution. The fundamental change, of course, arose from 
the introduction, during the Apostolic Age itself, of the 
doctrine of the Incarnate “Logos.” For, this doctrine, 
despite subsequent, Hellenic influence, must be traced 
back to the Fourth Gospel. Jesus Himself, however, was 
in no way its author. The principal change in consti¬ 
tution arose from the misunderstanding of the place 
of Peter in the government of the Church, or, rather, 
from the substitution of the “Roman ideology” in this 


2See Batiffol; “Introduction,” and pages 37 et seq. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 177 

regard for the primitive conception of the position, and 
prominence undoubtedly assigned to Peter by Jesus 
Himself. In the development, if not in the origin of 
this phase of “Roman ideology,” Clement of Rome, 
and Cyprian had a share. But Jesus was not the 
founder of the “Petrine Primacy,” or, consequently, of 
the Roman infallible papacy of subsequent date, even al¬ 
though any one of the Gospels appears to be discovered 
to have declared the contrary. Hence, the need to re¬ 
pudiate St. Matthew, XVI., 17-19, on the Petrine Pri¬ 
macy. We have previously alluded to Harnack’s attitude 
towards this famous passage of that Gospel. Hence, 
also the need to ignore St. John, XXI., 15-17, and to 
minimize the importance of St. Luke, XXII., 31, and 
32. However Harnack concedes that the Apostles had 
absolute, supreme authority. Indeed, this is manifest 
from their conduct at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts, 
XV). Moreover, they could have had the power to ex¬ 
ercise such authority from Jesus only. They could not 
have arrogated it to themselves. The mode of proce¬ 
dure at the above-mentioned council is sufficient proof 
of this. The other Christians of that epoch, many of 
whom were themselves endowed with charisms of, at 
least, an exceptional character, nevertheless, recognized 
the superior position of the Apostles in the “ecclesia 
docens,” precisely because they were aware that Jesus 
Himself had so arranged the hierarchy. Hence, to con¬ 
fute Harnack, there is no necessity to demonstrate here 
the Petrine Primacy. It does not matter here whether 
St. Peter, or St. James was the head of that hierarchy. 
What is certain, and sufficient is that the Apostolic 
Church had already a centralized organization. The 
inference is imperative that Jesus Himself was its orig¬ 
inal, and immediate cause. Therefore, the Apostolic 
Church, both in doctrine, and in visible unification, was 


178 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

totally, and directly, and unequivocably the “Church of 
Jesus” Himself. 

In the First Section of this work, we had reason 
to point out in what sense the Messianic Kingdom is 
eschatological, just as, likewise, we had reason to show 
that as far as Loisy and his school are concerned, the 
“Messianic Consciousness” means the self-deception of 
Jesus upon His God-Man Messiahship. The “Church 
of Jesus,” as we have just said, was a fully formed, 
visible society. If we listen to the preaching of the 
Apostles, its aim was, first of all, to continue the work 
of the Saviour of mankind in this world; and, sec¬ 
ondly, and in consequence, to render itself the Kingdom 
of God in heaven. Jesus did not preach a purely apo¬ 
calyptic kingdom. He did most emphatically preach a 
church, which, amongst other things, would replace the 
Jewish dispensation. Therefore, Loisy 3 is utterly mis¬ 
taken in asserting that the idea of the Church was 
substituted by the force of events for the idea of the 
Kingdom. It is a historical error to assume that men 
could speak of the Church, only after the Church had 
come into existence, and after the Jewish people, as a 
whole, had refused to be moved by the preaching of 
the Apostles. Loisy is nearer the truth than is Har- 
nack, inasmuchas he appears to intimately connect the 
Apostolic Church with the “Church of Jesus,” and to 
admit that Jesus Himself formed the Apostolic Church, 
with St. Peter as its head. He also admits that the 
society instituted by Jesus implied a truly centralized 
medium of teaching. But he adds that “Jesus provided 
for the diffusion of the Gospel for the time then pres¬ 
ent.” Jesus thus prepared for the Kingdom to come 
within a short time. It was then His tragic illusion 
that the imminent, and catastrophic advent of the 


SSee Batiffol, pages 75-79. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 179 

Kingdom would dawn upon His followers in all its 
glory. Only subsequently was He disillusioned. He 
died for another, and later phase of the Kingdom. But 
the society, which He had instituted, remained for 
many years in the expectation of the Kingdom, as 
originally proposed to it. By this very expectation it 
was perpetuated. This society, afterwards compelled 
by dint of circumstances to revert to the notion of a 
future kingdom, eventually became the Church. How¬ 
ever, the hypothesis of a purely apocalyptic kingdom 
having been exploded, and the true character of the 
Messianic Kingdom having been demonstrated, the 
very foundation of Loisy’s theory has been cut away.4 
While Jesus Himself was yet on earth, the defin¬ 
itely marked out, and incipiently organized “group” of 
followers around Him, whose existence Loisy could not 
but recognize, took its doctrine, and form of worship 
from its Lord. They obeyed the lasting, divine com¬ 
mandments in the Law, as He directed, not as the Soph- 
erim, and the Pharisees wished. They entered into the 
synagogue at Nazareth, because He spoke therein. 
After having been called by Him, they no longer felt 
bound to any synagogue. Although sorry to hear of 
the coming destruction of the splendid Temple, they no 
longer believed its preservation essential to the King¬ 
dom. After the Lord’s departure from earth, His fol¬ 
lowers cleaved, and “differentiated,” and “integrated” 
into other “groups,” which all, however, retained the 
fundamental unity in Christ Jesus, and, consequently, 
the fundamental distinction from what had been abrog¬ 
ated of Israel. Apart from other sources, we may 
glean from Tacitus, 5 who, however, ignorantly termed 


J t We may note that the famous theory of Sabatier, which is somewhat 
similar to that of Harnack on the infant church, is reviewed by 
Batiffol, pages 143 et seq. See also “Christus,” pages 983 & 984. 
5Annal. XV, 44. See Batiffol, pages 17 & 18. 



180 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

it an “execrable superstition,” that Christianity, not 
only in Judaea, but also at Rome, in the time of Nero, 
or about A. D. 64, was already known to be a religion 
different from Judaism. Doubtless, it was difficult for 
St. Peter to turn to the Gentiles (Acts, X). Other dis¬ 
ciples were loth to relinquish the imposition of cir¬ 
cumcision, and legal observances upon the new con¬ 
verts. In the days of St. Paul, there was already an 
heretical sect of “Judaizero” seeking some mode of 
making the practices of the Temple converge with 
Christianity. But there was never a division within 
the fold itself into a Petrine Church, and a Pauline 
Party. St. Paul himself repressed all inclinations to 
estimate him as more than a humble, and repentant 
worker for Jesus, and late accession into the ranks of 
the Apostles. Until about the close of the first century 
of the Christian Era, the rabbinical Jews evinced them¬ 
selves zealous, and, to some extent, successful, in at¬ 
tracting Greek proselytes, on whom they enforced cir¬ 
cumcision, and subservience to the Law. They likewise 
compelled these proselytes to submit to some kind of 
baptism. 6 Yet, some years before St. John died, this 
miscalled “apostolate” of Judaism, which had always 
exhibited a contemptuous aversion for everything 
Christian, had sunk into innocuous desuetude. 7 As fast 
as the circumstances of the times permitted, the rela¬ 
tions of the scattered communities, or “churches” of 
Christians, with the See undoubtedly established at 
Rome by St. Peter 8 were made clearer, and closer. St. 
Clement of Rome 9 was no innovator in this regard. 
Nor, later, was St. Cyrian. 16 Not even the un- 

6 See Batiffol, pages 11 et seq. 

TBatiffol, pages 37 et seq.; 55 et seq. 

8 Alzog, “Universal Church Hist.,” English transl., Cincinnati, vol. I, 
1874, pages 180-182; Batiffol, pages 69 et seq. 

9Alzog, vol. I, pages 409 et seq.; Denzinger-Bannwart, pages 20 & 21 ; 
Batiffol, pages 122 et seq. 

10Batiffol, pages 332 et seq.; Kirch, pages 151, 156, 157, & 166. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 181 

scrupulous ambition of other patriarchs could 
upset the traditionally universal jurisdiction of 
the Holy See. The first four, great, General Councils 
were effective only in so far as ratified by the papacy. 
The supreme authority of the papacy necessarily im¬ 
plies infallibility in teaching the flock as one vast whole. 
If the ultimate pronouncement in the visible society of 
Jesus were not entirely free from suspicion of error, the 
Word of Jesus could not be certainly ascertained. To 
any unprejudiced student of history, nothing could ac¬ 
centuate this statement better than the result of the 
strife of kings, and of councils with the popes of the 
later Middle Ages. Experience, as well as reason, 
proves that the “Petrine Primacy” in the Catholic sense 
is infallible, as well as perennial. 

It is not hard to tell why Harnack, and Loisy are 
so interested in the “Church of Jesus,” and so anxious 
to deny the derivation of the centralized, infallible, 
teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church from 
it. Men, who start off from the gratuitous postulates 
that the supernatural is impossible, and that the Divine 
Sonship of Jesus is a chimera; and who, therefore, 
must retain the liberty to throw the miraculous out of 
all the Gospels, and to reject altogether the declarations 
of Jesus on His Divinity in St. John’s Gospel, and to 
distort His statements in the Synoptics, are compelled 
to find some pretexts for their unwillingness to treat 
the records of the Church in the manner, in which the 
records of any visible society testifying to itself should 
be treated. Any organization with an uninterrupted 
life is the supreme witness to its origin, constitution, 
laws of government, and archives. It could not be de¬ 
ceived on these matters. Nor, in due conditions, could 
it deceive the world. These conditions are historically 
verified in regard to the Church. In its primitive, and 


182 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

apostolic commencement, it received the Word from its 
Founder, and transmitted the same, both orally, and, 
to say nothing of the rest of the New Testament, by 
the Gospels. It also added to its documents other early 
works, which it does not affirm to be inspired 11 like the 
New Testament, but which, nevertheless, it recognizes 
as assisting in crystallizing the wording, and the mean¬ 
ing of the original message of its Founder. Thus, the 
Church wrote, preserved, and guards the Gospels. They 
are a part, the most important part, of its written arch¬ 
ives. By the very necessity of things, the Church is 
the sole, authentic interpreter of the Gospels. The 
Church alone can absolutely attest to the meaning of 
the declarations of Jesus of the Gospels. In line, the 
testimony of the Church is the ultimate, and infallible 
criterion of everything concerning Jesus of the Gospels. 
The sequence, and conclusion are evident. The advo¬ 
cates of “Higher Criticism,” and of “Modernism” vainly 
seek a flaw in the premises. The immemorial testi¬ 
mony of the Church 12 refutes their theories of the 
origin of the “Roman ideology,” as well as of the 
origin of the divinity ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels. 

THE INSINUATION THAT FAITH INCAPACIT¬ 
ATES US FROM TRULY JUDGING UPON THE 
HISTORY, AND THE RELATIONS OF 
CHURCH AND GOSPELS. 

It is illogical, therefore, for the above-mentioned 
critics to turn about, and to insinuate that “our eyes 
are held,” and that our faith prevents us from form¬ 
ing a true, sound, and “scientific” judgment about the 

llOn Inspiration, see the “Providentissmus Deus,” Nov. 18 1893 In 
Seisenberger, page 176. 

72The argument of St. Irenaeus, (see Kirch, pages 69 & 70; Batiffol 

pages 164 et seq.) and of Tertullian (see Kirch, pages 97, 103-105* 
& 121; Batiffol. pages 264 et seq.) ; and forcibly revived by Moehler’ 
“Symbolism” English transl., London, 1894, pages 256 et seq 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 183 

relations of Church and Gospels. Such an insinuation 
has practically been obviated by the preceding line 
of reasoning. Nevertheless, it may be well to consider 
what it is that prompts these men to endeavor to ex¬ 
clude the Roman Catholic scholar from the possession 
of truly scientific acumen in the point at issue. It is 
the persuasion that he blindly assents to the assertions 
of his Church about its divine institution, and com¬ 
plete authority over the Gospels, because he has been 
accustomed, from his very childhood, to hear from all, 
whom he respects, that he has the faith, and that it is 
a sin to doubt about it. Indeed, he has been taught 
that he received the faith, when baptized in infancy. 
We can retort, however, that the Roman Catholic 
scholar has a reason for the faith, that it is in him, 13 
particularly, regarding the origins, and relations of 
Church, and Gospels. Consequently, he is justified 
in abiding by it. He has been taught that faith is re¬ 
ceived at Baptism validly conferred. But, he has not 
been taught that he elicited the act of faith before 
he arrived at the use of reason. This is an important 
distinction, which should be kept in view. The faith, 
which, according to the Church, is infused into the 
soul of the child, who is validly baptized, is the virtue 
of faith. It is defined as the internal, immanent, su¬ 
pernatural power, or capacity, divinely superadded 
to the natural powers, or capacities, which underlies 
the eliciting, at the dawn of reason, of the act itself 
of faith. 1 * Thus, it is the great advantage that the 
baptized Christian has over the unbaptized adult 15 
seeking light. Is there any conceivable reason why 


i3See Hurter, “Theol. Dogmat. Comp.,” 1888, tome 1, pages 465 et seq. ; 
Bouquillon, “De Virtutibus Theol.,” 1890, pages 17 et seq.; Noldin, 
“Summa Theol. Moral.,” 1911, tome 2, pages 44 et seq. 

XjSee Hurter, loc. cit., page 479; Noldin, tome 1, pages 33 et seq.; Bou¬ 
quillon, pages 86 et seq. 

15See Mazzella, “De Gratia Cbristi,” Rome, 1892, pages 192 et seq. 



184 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

the Church may not be right about the divine agency 
in this matter? Undoubtedly, the Roman Catholic, 
who has grown up, and who has become a student of 
the history of the Church, and of the Gospels, has 
always felt that it is a sin to doubt about his faith. 
Nor does he doubt but that, from the beginning of his 
use of reason, he has continued in the act of faith. 
He knows that the Church lays down principles in 
such matters, but does not make thier application to 
individual cases. But he is satisfied of the worth of his 
Baptism. He is satisfied that he never destroyed his 
faith by a formal act of unbelief. It is true that he has 
neither intuition, nor angelic vision of the agency of 
God over the supernaturalness of his faith. Never¬ 
theless, if he has been living up to his belief, and if he 
has been practising the theological virtues, he has the 
practical certainty that the Holy Ghost testifies to, 
and with his spirit that he is an adopted son of God. i6 
Above all, since our opponents admit nothing super¬ 
natural, he is sure of the rational groundwork of his 
assent to the Word of God. This is the main point to 
be made. Having been made, there can be no logical 
objection against his natural power, or capacity, for 
any kind of scientific attainment whatsoever. 

The rational groundwork of the assent of the Ro¬ 
man Catholic was laid down at the age of reason. Never¬ 
theless, he could not have been in error, or in possibi¬ 
lity of subsequent revision, and reversion of judg¬ 
ment. Doubtless, while he retained the virtues of 
childhood, he was unsophisticated. He believed his 
parents, catechists, and priest. But these, although 
human, and fallible, were not voicing personal opinions, 
but were imparting the fixed creed of the Church! 
Surely, the Church must be admitted to know precisely 


/6See Corluy, vol. II, page 314 on Roin. VIII, 16. 




Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 185 

what it wishes to teach. Surely, also, its testimony to 
its own constitution, and archives is unimpeachable. 
However, what our opponents have in mind about the 
human testimony of parents, pastor, and others, bears 
principally upon the knowledge of the object of the 
subjective assent to the Word of God, which the Roman 
Catholic gave in his childhood. It does not bear upon 
the formal motive of that assent. Even at that age, 
he saw clearly, and certainly by his own intelligence, 
prompted, of course, but, nevertheless, a free agent 
moved by intrinsic evidence, that there is a Creator, 
and Ruler of the universe, the Heavenly Father, infin¬ 
itely superior to earthly parents, infinitely more power¬ 
ful to punish disobedience, infinitely safer from error, 
or deception, who must be absolutely believed in what 
He has said to His children. This metaphysically cer¬ 
tain reasoning, however, did not afford him the fact 
of Divine Revelation. Nor do we claim that it did. Un¬ 
doubtedly, his first assent to the Word of God signified 
that he believed in what the Church teaches, because 
it is the Word of God. But here comes in a phase of 
the testimony of parents, pastor, and others, which our 
opponents are apt to overlook. When he was a child, 
he was incapable of thorough investigation into the 
fact that God has revealed the Christian Religion. His 
preceptors, however, acted the part of living tradition, 
and showed him a sufficiently convincing amount of 
the proofs of the divine origin of Christianity, as well 
as of the fact that it is the Church, in which, and 
through which, the Divine Revelation remains always 
cognoscible to mankind. 17 Therefore, although but a 
child, he, nevertheless, logically accepted this phase of 
the testimony of his educators; and, because of the 
evidence, mediate, but conclusive, contained in it, he 


17See Bouquillon, pages 49 et seq. 



186 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


assented to what the Church teaches, because it is the 
Word of God. After the fact, we affirm that those 
educators were fully authorized in appealing to super¬ 
natural, confirmatory works, especially miracles. We 
now insist on the fact of such works. In demonstrat¬ 
ing the fulfillment in Jesus of the Messianic Predic¬ 
tions, we brought up one line of them. In rationally, 
and critically defending the historicity of the Gospels 
against rationalists, we necessarily vindicated the fact 
of the miracles of Jesus. In order to confound our op¬ 
ponents, it is not necessary to urge that the assent of 
the Roman Catholic became faith by being supernat- 
uralized under grace, both inceptively, and entitatively. 
It is enough here that its groundwork was, and is in 
accord with the natural mode of acquiring certain 
knowledge; and that his natural powers, or capacities 
for increasing his store of information are in no wise 
depreciated, or impaired. His eyes are not held. With¬ 
out equivocation, he can unreservedly promise to bow 
to the strict truth about Gospels, and Church. Could 
any upholder of the rights of reason ask more ? 

Moreover, what has been said so far is directed 
primarily against those rationalistic critics of the Gos¬ 
pels, who never have professed to have had supernat¬ 
ural faith, and, who, consequently, have been consistent 
to the extent of avoiding all theories of the process of 
religious belief. It is likewise directed against the 
Modernists, in so far as they may be regarded as the 
vehicle of “Higher Criticism.” Since, however, the 
Modernists have introduced a new “faith,” into the 
“scientific” mind, we can also retort upon them the 
very charge made against us. It is the “faith” of the 
Modernists, 18 not our supernatural faith, which ob- 


18See the “Pascendi” of Pius X, Sept. 8, 1907, as published by the Eccles. 
Rev., Nov., 1907, pages 3-13, 23-28, and 32-34. Also art. “Modern¬ 
ism” in “The Cath. Encyc.” 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 187 


structs sound judgment upon the origin and character 
of Church and Gospels. 

The Modernists, like all the other rationalists, 
started off from the gratuitous postulates that super¬ 
natural works, and the Incarnation of the Logos are 
opposed to reason. They were not, however, content 
with destructive weapons solely. They also wished for 
a positive philosophy of belief, which, while girding 
them against the inmutability of religious dogmas, 
would also give full freedom to the development of the 
religious tendency in every man. Thus, they eventu¬ 
ally took refuge in a kind of epistemological idealism. 
They cleared the way for this by adopting some of the 
elements of the philosophy of Herbert Spencer. 19 They 
agreed with him in asserting a religious sentiment in 
every man, which is correlated with the truth behind 
all creeds, and which is the fundamental fact in human 
intelligence. They did not, however, admit that the 
ultimate truth of religion coalesces with the ultimate 
truth of science. While admitting the relativity of 
knowledge, they did not admit that every phenomenon 
of the universe is a manifestation of the existing, but 
unknown Power. Spencer assumed the final conver¬ 
gence of science with religion. The Modernists con¬ 
cluded that science and religion run on parallel lines, 
which can never meet. They assented, however, to the 
theory that the external constituents, in which every 
creed embodies the belief in the Absolute Entity, are 
good, but with a relative goodness capable of evolution 
into something higher. They added that the Absolute 
Entity, or God, while unknowable by experimental 
knowledge, or science, was cognoscible to conscious¬ 
ness. 


SDencer “First Principles,” New York, 1900, pages 3 et seq. & 113 
etseq F. Collins, “An Epitome of the Synthetic Phil.” New York, 
1895, pages 3 et seq. 



188 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

Their theory of the relativity of Knowledge is as 
old as Protagoras. 20 But, since their religious activity 
is a personal function of pure intelligence, it is neces¬ 
sarily confined to the individual consciousness. Conse¬ 
quently, being deprived of the ordinary means of inter¬ 
communication with other individuals developing their 
religious sentiments, the Modernist should have dis¬ 
carded all notions about “conventions” in the evolution 
of religious dogmas. We may observe in passing that 
the Modernists' theory about the psychological proc¬ 
esses underlying the development of his “faith” into 
the absolute realization of Divine Immanence, exhibits 
the influence of Boader's 2 * “transcendental logic,” of 
Gunther's 22 particular form of consciousness of the 
“Ego,” of Guenard's 23 Neo-Cartesianism, and of Ros- 
mini’s 2 * ideal criterion of truth. We may leave the 
more profound investigation into the Modernist's par¬ 
ticular form of epistemological idealism in the capable 
hands of the “Neo-Scholastics.” 25 They will thus find 
a new scope for their energy against philosophical error 
in the clergy. 

The Modernist claims that, as a historian, he holds 
that the Church is a merely human institution, and 
that the Gospels are mere human expressions of the 
working of the idea of the divine in the minds of the 
first few generations of Christians, but that, as a man 
of “faith,” he believes in the agency of God in the 
foundation of the Church, and in the formation 
of the Gospels. Furthermore, he claims that, 
as a historian, he holds that Jesus is a mere man, al- 

20 Ritter and Preller, “Hist. Phil. Graeco-Rom.,” etc. Hamburg, 1838, 
pages 131 et seq. Janet et S6ailles, “Hist, de la Phil.,” Paris, Dela- 
grave, pages 64 & 928 & 929. 

2 lSee A. Stockl, “Gecsh. der neuer. Phil.,” etc., Mainz, 1883, Bd. II, pages 
326 et seq. 

22 Stockl, op. et loc. cit., pages 360 et seq. 

23E. Blanc, “Hist, de la phil.,” Paris, 1896, tome 2, page 193. 

24 Gonzalez, op. cit., tome 4, pages 191 et seq. 

25 Blanc, op. cit., tome 3, pages 552 et seq.; M. De Wulf “Introduct. a la 
phil. Neo-Scol.,” Louvain, 1904, pages 207 et seq.; and J. Perrier 
“The Revival of Schol. Phil., etc.,” New York, 1909, pages 158 et seq 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 189 

though the supreme possessor of Divine Immanence, 
but that, as a man of “faith,”.he believes that Jesus 
of the Gospels, or, in other words, Jesus of the “con¬ 
vention” of the religious consciousness of the writers 
of the Gospels, is truly divine. Hence, it is manifest 
that, practically speaking, the Modernist holds that 
what is true in his historical science, is untrue in his 
religious “vital immanence,” and vice versa. What is 
this position of the Modernist, if not a revival of the 
fallacy of the twofold truth, invented by Ibn Roschd, 26 
and utilized by Siger de Brabant? 27 Suppose that the 
principle of contradiction be rejected, what becomes 
of the criterion of truth ? In fine, since the Modernist 
admits that he cannot attain the knowledge of the 
Infinite, Personal, First Cause from inference from the 
fact of the finiteness of the visible universe, there 
must be something essential lacking in his power of 
acquiring any kind of science based upon the data of 
sense-perception. Indeed, he has voluntarily deprived 
himself of the power of entering even into the domain 
of “agnostic” science, biblical, or otherwise. In fine, 
therefore, it is the “faith” of the Modernist, not the 
supernatural faith of the Roman Catholic, which 
should be deemed the obstacle to true science of the 
relations of Church and Gospels. Hence, we may con¬ 
clude this point of the Gospel-Argument by again as¬ 
serting that Jesus as presented in the Gospels is the 
real Jesus of history, because the Church, which pro¬ 
duced the Gospels, so affirms. 

SECOND POINT OF THE MINOR PREMISE. THE 
DIVINE SANCTION OF THE TRUTH OF 
CHRISTS SELF-REVELATION. 

It is evident that whoever claims to speak in the 


2 GRenan, “Averroes” etc., page 167; and Gonzalez, tome 2, page 491. 
27Mandonnet “Siger de Brabaut,” etc., Fribourg, 1899, page CLXXI. 



190 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

name of God, and as the mouthpiece of God, must ab¬ 
solutely manifest the fact that he is divinely sent, and 
divinely attested. The proof, which he offers of divine 
sanction, must be certainly supernatural in character. 
Hence, the divine mouthpiece must be equipped with 
the power of performing acts, which undoubtedly are 
miraculous. We have already proved that there are 
no legends, myths, fables, or, even, pious exaggerations 
in the Gospel account of the works of Jesus. The his¬ 
toricity of the Gospels, which has been absolutely es¬ 
tablished by means of the testimony of the Church, 
vouches for the fact that the works of Jesus are re¬ 
corded exactly as they occurred. It remains to be 
shown that those works were miraculous. If they are 
acknowledged to be miraculous, it is not difficult to go 
farther, and to show that they were performed in the 
name of the Father, and in confirmation of the fact 
of the divine origin of the declarations, which Jesus 
voiced about His identity. 

Before treating of the miracles of Jesus, how¬ 
ever, it may be wise to glance at His prophecies. For, 
from one point of view, they themselves were works, 
inasmuchas they effected what they signified. More¬ 
over, as in the case of the fulfillment of the Messianic 
Predictions in the Old Testament, the fulfillment of the 
prophecies of Jesus is the guarantee of their supernat¬ 
ural character. Further, the evincing of the fact of 
their supernatural character is a sort of preparatory 
proof of the direct, divine intervention in other extra¬ 
ordinary deeds of Jesus. Just after Peter’s Confes¬ 
sion, Our Blessed Lord inaugurated His predictions 
about His Passion, Death, and Resurrection (Matthew 
XVI.; Mark, VIII.; and Luke, IX.). He renewed them 
after the Transfiguration (Matthew, XVII.; Mark, 
IX.; and Luke, IX). He solemnly repeated them be- 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 191 

fore the last entry into Jerusalem. (Matthew, XX.; 
Mark, X.; and Luke, XVIII). The announcement in 
those prophecies of the details of the sufferings, into 
which the malice of free agents would plunge Him, 
evinced supernatural knowledge. Those details were 
all executed in fact. If it be said that He became 
acquainted with those details by the perusal of what 
the Old Testament contained on the Messiah, there is, 
nevertheless, no human explanation of the fact, that 
the “council of the malignant” caused them to be in¬ 
flicted upon Him. His predictions 28 of the destruction 
of Jerusalem, of its Temple, and of the dispersion of 
the Jews were as surely fulfilled, as certainly made. 
So, likewise, in regard to the sending of the Paraclete, 
who evidently effected a radical change in the character 
of the eleven; in regard to the Conversion of the Gen¬ 
tiles; and in regard to the persecutions of His flock. 
After all these centuries, the indefectibility of the 
Church is beyond question. The resurrection of the 
dead, and the Last Judgment will undoubtedly occur 
at the end of time. He, who foresaw so much that 
events have already verified, must be admitted to have 
rightly predicted these things also. We have passed 
over minor prophecies, which were fulfilled before the 
Crucifixion. 

The Gospels being received as accredited records, 
the moral character of Jesus vindicates our trust in 
His extraordinary deeds. Being truthful, and sincere, 
even in the opinion of the rationalistic critics, He could 
neither call God to witness to a lie, nor perform acts of 
legerdemain. His extraordinary deeds, moreover, were 
so numerous, and so diversified, that the divine inter¬ 
ruption of the ordinary laws of nature in their accom¬ 
plishment is clearly seen, if they be viewed collect- 


28See Pohle-Preuss “Christology,” St. Louis, 1913, pages 34 & 35. 



192 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


ively. They began with the changing of the water 
into wine, at Cana (John, II., 1-12). Then came the 
healing of the son of the ruler of Capharnaum. 29 The 
many instances of the expulsion of devils from the pos¬ 
sessed 30 hardly need to be recalled individually. The 
answer however of Our Blessed Lord to the charge 
of expelling devils by the power of Beelzebub should 
not be forgotten. The man with the palsy at Caphar- 
naum was cured; the daughter of Jairus was raised 
from the dead; the two blind men had their sight re¬ 
stored. 31 The cripple was healed at the Probatic Pool. 
(John, V., 1-15). At Naim, the widow’s son was 
brought back to life (Luke, VII). The miraculous mul¬ 
tiplication of the loaves, 32 the walking on the waters, 33 
the cure of the deaf-mute of Decapolis, 3 * and of the 
blind man at Bethsaida 35 followed. 

The Transfiguration 36 took place on Mount Tabor, 
as is proven by the constant tradition of antiquity, re¬ 
corded by Origin, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. Je¬ 
rome. The Gospel accounts do not permit of the hypo¬ 
thesis, that the three Apostles, who witnessed the 
Transfiguration, were laboring under any delusion at 
the time. If not, they could not have rendered an 
exaggerated story of this great miracle later. There 
is no possible, natural explanation of the fact of the 
Transfiguration, Jesus being acknowledged to have 
been above any deliberate attempt at imposition. More- 


29Matthew, IV; Mark. I; Luke, IV; and John, IV. 

SOMatthew, IV, VII, VIII, XII, XV; Mark, I, III, V, VII; and Luke IV, 
VIII, and XI. 

SlMatthew, IX ; Mark, V ; and Luke, VIII. 

32Matthew, XIV ; Mark, VI; Luke, IX ; John, VI. Second multiplication, 
Matthew, XV, Mark, VIII. See Didon, vol. I, pages 454 et seq.; and 
vol. II, page 439. See also Matthew, XVI, 5-12. 

SSMatthew, XIV; Mark, VI; and John, VI. 

S^Matthew, XV; and Mark, VII. 

SoMark, VIII. 

S6Matthew, XVII; Mark, IX; and Luke, IX. See critical recension, com¬ 
ment, and Greek & Latin texts of Mark, IX, 1-12 in Knabenbauer, 
“In S. Mark,” Paris, 1907, page 230 et seq.; Didon, vol. II, page 
443 ; Lepin, page 185 ; and Le Camus, vol. II, pages 160 et seq. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 193 


over, His acknowledged humility, and meekness pre¬ 
vent any theory of an effort at self-glorification on His 
part. He must have had a sufficient reason for effect¬ 
ing the Transfiguration. While we cannot be certain 
about it, it seems, nevertheless, that His reason was 
the immediate fulfillment of the prediction, made just 
beforehand, that some of His hearers should not die 
without having seen Him in His glory. After the 
Transfiguration, came the cures of the boy possessed 
from his birth, 37 of the lepers, 38 of the man born 
blind, 39 in which case there was a juridical investiga¬ 
tion into the facts, of the infirm woman/ 0 and of the 
dropsical man.^ 

The Gospel of St. John being accepted absolutely, 
its account of the resurrection of Lazarus^ 2 must im¬ 
press any unprejudiced mind with the proof of the 
public knowledge of this great work of Our Blessed 
Lord. The cure of the man blind from birth was a 
public fact, which the Sanhedrim could neither deny, 
nor explain by diabolical intervention. But the raising 
of Lazarus, four days after his death, when his body 
was already evincing signs of decay, produced such a 
general excitement amongst the Jews, that the Sanhe¬ 
drim could think of no way of allaying it, excepting 
by striving to put Lazarus to death. Consequently, St. 
Augustine, and other Fathers, laid the greatest stress 
upon this miracle. They rightly argued from the words 
of the Lord Himself, that it was an anticipatory, and 
immediate figure of the Resurrection. Of all the work 
of Our Blessed Lord, it is the chief, and most striking 

S7Matthew, XVII; Mark, IX ; and Luke, IX. 

SSLuke, XVII. 

S9.Tohn, IX. Critical recension, comment, and texts, Knabenbauer, "In 
S. Joan,” Paris, 1906, pages 317 et seq.; Didon, vol. II, pages 55 et 
seq.; and Le Camus, vol. II, pages 256 et seq. 

40Luke, XIII. 

JlLuke, XIV. 

John, XI, Knabenbauer, "In Joan,” pages 358 et seq.; and Le Camus, 
vol. 2, pages 446 et seq. 



194 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

indication of the impossibility of isolating the Resur¬ 
rection from His other acts. Between the raising of 
Lazarus and the Resurrection came the curing of the 
two blind men,* 3 at the gate of Jericho, and the prodig¬ 
ies^ attending the Crucifixion. 

The Resurrection^ 5 was the climax of Our Blessed 
Lord's sojourn on earth, as well as the corner-stone 
of the belief in the divine power in Jesus (I. Cor., 
XV., 14.) His death was not merely apparent. The 
chief priests, and the Pharisees were certain that He 
had died before He was taken down from the Cross, 
and laid in the sepulchre. They took care to have the 
latter guarded by their own satellites, lest the disciples 
of Jesus should steal His body, and spread the rumor 
that He had risen, as He had foretold. (Matthew, 
XXVII., 62-66). The disciples were not deluded by 
some vision, which led them to imagine the Resurrec¬ 
tion. The doubting Thomas was no visionary. He 
would not, and did not admit the Resurrection, until 
he had had evident, tangible proof. It is true that no 
one saw the Resurrection. But, the fact that Jesus 
died being certain, the fact of His Resurrection is 
positively, and surely proved by His re-appearances on 
earth, and on numerous occasions, and before many 
witnesses, once, indeed, before 500 present together. 
He was seen, not at a distance, but close at hand. He 
was talked with, and touched. Although His manner 
of ingress, and of egress was at times inscrutable, He, 
nevertheless, confirmed His reality by eating with 
others. If this fact be incomprehensible in regard to a 
glorified body, it does not, on that account, loose its 

y,3Matthew, XX ; Mark, X ; and Luke, XVIII. On their reconciliation see 
Didon, vol. II, pages 452 & 453. 

^Matthew, XXVII; Mark, XV ; and Luke, XXIII. 

45 Matthew, XXVIII; Mark, XVI; Luke, XXIV ; and John, XX. Knaben- 
bauer’s texts, and comment.; Lepin, page 386 ; and Le Camus, vol. 
Ill, pages 412 et seq.; and 483 et seq. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 195 

force in this connection. As far as acts, and words, 
bearing on Divine Sonship, as well as Messiahship, are 
concerned, His most important re-appearances were 
those, which occurred before the disciples on the road to 
Emmaus;^ 6 before the Apostles in the coenaculum/ 7 
before them with St. Thomas^ 8 in their midst; and be¬ 
fore the eleven at Jerusalem// 9 After the Resurrection 
came the second miraculous draught of fishes. 50 The 
supernatural works of visible character ended with the 
Ascension from Mount Olivet (Acts, I., 12). It is, in¬ 
deed, remarkable that the Ascension is mentioned by- 
St. Mark (ch. XVI., 19), and by St. Luke (ch. XXIV., 
51) only. Moreover, even they merely state its accom¬ 
plishment, although St. Luke again reverts to it in the 
Acts (I., 2-12). Yet, we have arrived at the point, 
where the briefest reference to the Ascension by one 
evangelist alone would have sufficed, especially since, as 
we have shown, the aim and scope of each particular 
Gospel determined the character of its history of the 
Lord. It is enough that there is no discrepancy, inas- 
muchas as St. Matthew, and St. John did not deny the 
fact of the Ascension. Moreover, St. Matthew evidently 
implied the Ascension, or, at least, the fact that Jesus 
did not die again, (ch. XXVIII., 18-20), while St. John 
presupposed it in the Apocalypse (I., 1-7; XIX., 9-16). 
We may add that we can understand why St. Matthew, 
and St. John did not formally record the Ascension. It 
was to them the perfectly known, and natural corollary 
of the Resurrection. It was the predicted, and, hence, 
fulfilled, exit of the Holy One, who had, once for all, 
triumphed over death. Thus, from the beginning, St. 

46 'Mark, XVI; and Luke, XXIV. 

1 4 /Luke, XXIV; and John, XX. 

^SJolin, XX. 

4 yMaTlc, XVI ; and Luke, XXIV. 

50 John XXI. First draught mentioned in Matthew, IV; Mark, I; and 
Luke V, explicitly. 




196 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

Peter spoke of the Ascension, (Acts, II., 32 and 33), 
and wrote of it (I. Pet., III., 22). St. Paul alluded to it 
in many places in his Epistles. 51 The tradition, oral, 
and written, of the Church of Jesus, from the Apostolic 
Age onward, has unwaveringly upheld the Ascension. 
In fine, the certainly extraordinary deeds of Jesus, 
when collectively considered, evince themselves to be 
miraculous in the proper sense of the word. 

Moreover, Jesus exercised His supernatural power 
in the name of the Father, and in confirmation of that 
fact, that He was the mouthpiece of God. “If I bear 
witness of myself, my witness is not true,” 52 (i. e., in 
the opinion of my hostile audience, who do not deem it 
worthy of credence). “There is another that beareth 
witness of me” (i. e., the Father, as verses 34th and 
36th plainly indicate); “and I know that the witness 
which he witnesseth of me is true. You sent to John, 
and he gave testimony to the truth. But I receive not 
testimony from man; but I say these things that you 
may be saved. He was a burning and a shining light; 
and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light. 
But I have a greater testimony than that of John; for 
the works which the Father hath given me to perfect: 
the works themselves, which I do, give testimony of 
me, that the Father hath sent me.” (i. e. above, and 
beyond the passing testimony of John the Baptist, I 
have a greater, and continuous testimony. The super¬ 
natural works, which I have done, (Matthew, XI., 5), 
and which I am doing, in the name, authority, and 
power of the Father, exhibiting, as they do, the direct 
divine sanction of My words, prove that the Father sent 
Me, commissioned Me, speaks through Me, and, conse¬ 
quently, demands credence in My statements.) Thus, 


5lSee Le Camus, vol. Ill, page 408. 

oJJohn, V, 31 et scq. Knabeubauer, “In Joan,” pages 213 et seq. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 197 

He adds—“And the Father himself who hath sent me, 
hath given testimony of me/’ (For, besides His testi¬ 
mony through the works operated through Me, He has 
given the visible, and enduring testimony, voiced in the 
Messianic Predictions of the Old Testament. (See 
verses 38th and 39th). 

“The Pharisees therefore said to him: Thou givest 
testimony of thyself; thy testimony is not true. Jesus 
answered, and said to them: Although I give testimony 
of myself, my testimony is true; for I know whence I 
came, and whither I go: but you know not whence I 
came, or whither I go.” 53 (i. e. my testimony is true, 
because I know that I came from God, and go to God, 
and speak for God, and., hence, cannot deceive. But 
you, by your own fault, by your deliberate prejudice, 
and malice, have blinded yourselves about Me.) “I am 
one that give testimony of myself; and the Father that 
sent me giveth testimony of me.” (i. e. as above in 
ch. V., 36 et seq.). “Many things I have to speak and 
to judge of you” (i. e. to reprehend, and condemn in 
you). “But he that sent me is true; and the things I 
have heard of him, these same I speak in the world.” 
(i. e. I do not speak of Myself alone, but I but speak 
what I have heard from Him, who sent me; and who is 
truth itself; so that even the threats, (verse 24th) and 
the condemnations voiced by Me, proceed from Him). 
“And they understood not, that he called God his 
father.” 

Perhaps the most direct evidence, that Jesus is the 
supernaturally equipped mouthpiece of God, is to be 
found in St. John, X., 24 et seq. 57 ' Therein, “the Jews” 
asked Him to plainly state His identity. “Jesus an¬ 
swered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the 


5SJohn, VIII, 13 et seq.; Knabenbauer, pages 289 et seq.; and pages 110 
and 111 of this work. 

5 ^Knabenbauer, pages 348 et seq.; and pages 111 et seq. of this work. 



198 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

works that I do in the name of my Father, they give 
testimony of me.” “If I do not the works of My 
Father” (i. e., works, whose supernaturalness is mani¬ 
fest) “believe me not. But, if I do, though you will 
not believe me, believe the works; that you may know 
and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the 
Father.” 55 Hence, Jesus is the mouthpiece of God in 
such a way, that He is endowed with unique relation¬ 
ship with the Father, as well as gifted with such 
direct, divine sanction of His Word, that what He says 
of Himself rests absolutely on the truth of God. In fine, 
therefore, His declarations of identity, whatever may 
be their tenor, impose absolute obligation of belief. 

THIRD POINT OF THE MINOR PREMISE. JESUS 
OF THE GOSPELS, THE TRULY HISTORICAL, 
AND THE DIVINELY ATTESTED JESUS, 
DECLARED HIMSELF THE INCAR¬ 
NATE SON OF GOD. 

Jesus of the Gospels, who is the truly historical 
Jesus, vouched for in the living tradition of the Roman, 
Catholic Church, which He founded; and, who, as just 
has been demonstrated, is the divinely attested Jesus, 
the supernaturally equipped mouthpiece of God; and 
who, in this capacity, is absolutely authoritative in His 
demand for credence in His statements, directly de¬ 
clared Himself to be the Incarnate Son of God, 56 even 
independently, as it were, of what He declared about 
His God-Man Messiahship. He made formal declara¬ 
tions of Divine Sonship. 57 His manner of conducting 

5oSee also John XIV, 8 et seq. ; Knabenbauer, pages 441 et seq.; Corluy, 
vol. II, pages 43 et seq. 

56The declarations of Divine Sonship necessarily implied the Trinity in 
Unity. See Pohle-Preuss, “The Divine Trinity,” 1912, pages 9 et 
seq.: “Christology,” pages 10 et seq. 

57Frauzelin, pages 7 et seq.; 16 et seq.; 27 et seq.; 33 et seq.; and 49 et 
seq.; “The Divine Trinity,” pages 54 & 55 ; and 63 et seq.; Lepin, 
pages 320 et seq. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 199 

Himself was the practical commentary on the precise 
meaning of those declarations. 

Certainly Jesus appeared in this world as a man. 
He was like to us in all, excepting sin. He acknowledged 
His human inferiority to the Father. Yet, if God-Man, 
He did not contradict Himself by likewise calling Him¬ 
self God, the Son of God. He insisted upon the title of 
“Son of Man.” 58 He also vindicated to Himself the title 
of “Son of David.” 59 But it should not be forgotten 
that, under those titles, He performed miracles, and as¬ 
serted divine prerogatives. 69 As in regard to the Mes- 
siahship, 61 so, likewise, in regard to the Divine Sonship, 
we admit the “Reserve” of Jesus in disclosing Himself. 
In both lines, His self-revelation was progressive, cul¬ 
minating at the end. He silenced the devils, 62 who 
would proclaim Him the Christ, the Son of God, al¬ 
though, on one occasion, in regard to the demoniac of 
Gerasa, 63 He acted in just the opposite manner. He 
imposed silence about the raising of the daughter of 
Jairus, and about the subsequent cure of the two blind 
men. 6 * Also, about the healed leper ; 65 the deaf-mute of 
Decapolis ; 66 and the blind man of Bethsaida. 67 He de¬ 
manded secrecy of Peter, James, and John in the regard 
to the Transfiguration. 68 However, the “Reserve” of 
Jesus does not militate against the fact that He dis¬ 
closed Himself to be the Son of God, and, indeed, that 
He so disclosed Himself in an undeniable manner. As 
remarked in considering the Messiahship, He must be 

58See pages 116 & 117 of this work; Maas, vol. I, pages 425 et seq.; 

Lepin, pages 157 et seq. 

5.9See page 115 of this work. 

60See Lepin, page 316. 

6tfSee Lepin, pages 141 et seq. 

62Matthew, IV; Mark, I; and Luke, IV. 

63Matthew, VIII; Mark, V; and Luke, VIII. 

6^Matthew, IX ; Mark, V ; and Luke, VIII. 

65Matthew, VIII; Mark, I; and Luke, V. 

66Matthew, XV; and Mark, VII. 

67Mark, VIII. 

68Mattbew, XVII; Mark, IX; and Luke, IX. 



200 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


admitted to have had sufficient grounds for His method 
of procedure. It is merely question of “modus in 
rebus/' 

It may be well to recall here that Harnack, and 
Loisy, and their respective schools willingly grant that 
Jesus often called Himself the Son of God, inasmuchas 
He termed God His Father. 69 But they deny that He 
ever had any reference whatsoever to the natural, di¬ 
vine filiation. However, if those critics are shown to 
have erred about the character of the Fatherhood of 
God towards Jesus, the latter must be conceded to have 
consistently, and continually, as well as gradually, ma¬ 
nifested His Divine Sonship. He could not be blamed 
for the stupidity, or for the prejudice of His hearers. 
Moreover, our thesis having been established, the fact 
that Jesus continually called God His Father can be in¬ 
voked against the theory that Roman Catholics, in 
their defence of the divinity of Jesus, have recourse to 
isolated, obscure, and misinterpreted texts of the Gos¬ 
pels. 

The votaries of “Higher Criticism" and of “Mod¬ 
ernism" would hardly expect us to take up all the 
texts, 76 in which Jesus refers to His Father. They 
can very properly demand that we vindicate the Cath¬ 
olic sense of certain, famous declarations of Jesus, to 
which they themselves have devoted special attention. 
On the other hand, they should admit that, if Jesus 
be demonstrated to have plainly, and evidently affirmed 
the natural, divine filiation in even one of the declara¬ 
tions to be considered, the controversy is ended. Jesus 
is the “Logos" Incarnate. The declaration is certainly 
authentic. The testimony of Jesus is divinely attested. 


69See Lepin, pages 332, 337, 339, 340, 355, and 364. 

70For a nearly complete list of texts, see “The Divine Trinity,” pages 63 
83 ; on Jesus, as Judge on the Last Day, see Lepin, page 311 • on 
the formula of Baptism, see Lepin, page 375. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 201 

The apprehension of the meaning of His words must be 
followed by absolute belief in His Divine Sonship. 

VINDICATION OF THE FORMAL DECLARATIONS 
BY JESUS OF DIVINE SONSHIP. 

GOD-MAN, LOGOS INCARNATE. JOHN, III., 13-18. 

“And there was a man of the Pharisees, named 
Nicodemus, 71 a ruler of the Jews. This man came to 
Jesus by night, and said to Him: Rabbi, we know that 
Thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do 
these signs which Thou dost, unless God be with him.” 
This man, Nicodemus, undoubtedly a member of the 
Sanhedrim, being afraid of his fellow Pharisees, came 
to Jesus secretly. He rightly argued that the super¬ 
natural works of Jesus evinced the divine authority 
behind His teaching. Nevertheless, despite the testi¬ 
mony of St. John the Baptist, of which, as a member 
of the Sanhedrim, he must have been cognizant, he did 
not recognize Jesus as greater than a prophet. He 
came to Jesus, in order to inquire about entrance into 
the Messianic Kingdom, as he understood it. To his 
utter surprise, and astonishment, he got a lesson on 
the necessity of Baptism. In that lesson (verses 3rd 
to 8th) were plainly inculcated the existence, and the 
work of the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy 
Ghost. For his incredulity and ineptitude to hear of 
“heavenly things,” Nicodemus was rebuked by Jesus, 
(verses 9th to 12th). Yet, the latter went on to up¬ 
hold the absolute reliability of His testimony, by an 
assertion of divinity. “And no man hath ascended 
into heaven, but he that descendeth from heaven, the 
Son of Man who is in heaven” (v. 13th). Jesus, thus, 
intimated to Nicodemus that He was not only a teacher 


7lJohn, III, 1 et seq.; Knabenbauer, “In Joan,” pages 146 et seq. 



202 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 


from God, with authority higher than that of any 
prophet, but also God Himself, who descended from 
heaven, and took upon Himself the form of a servant. 
The “communicatio idiomatum” warranted the asser¬ 
tion that it is “the Son of Man who is in heaven.” 
Thus, Jesus proclaimed Himself the God-Man. 

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, 
so must the son of man be lifted up.” (i. e. on the 
Cross). “That whosoever believeth in him, may not 
perish; but may have life everlasting” (i. e., the testi¬ 
mony of Jesus, even of Jesus Crucified, being the Word 
of God, not only merits belief, but also confers life 
everlasting on the believer, i. e., the practical believer). 
Then, Jesus solemnly proclaimed that He is the God- 
Man, because He is the “only-begotten Son” Incar¬ 
nate. As the Catholic Church teaches, verses 16th, and 
following, are part of the discourse of Jesus. Since the 
critics have no ground for bringing up the question of 
the limits of infallible teaching authority, they cannot 
argue against our assertion, that the Catholic Church 
teaches, what it approves in commentaries on the Gos¬ 
pel of St. John. Besides, the notion, that the author 
of the Fourth Gospel, who, by the way, is no other 
than St. John, the Apostle, inserted the verses in ques¬ 
tion, is as puerile, as it is unsubstantiated. These 
observations, in so far as pertinent, hold good, in re¬ 
gard to other texts to be subsequently elucidated. 

“For God so loved the world, as to give His only- 
begotten Son:” (“sic enim Deus dilexit mundum, ut 
Filium suum unigenitum daret;” “ outws yap rjya.Trr]crev 6 
©Co? rov koc/hov, totrre tov vlov row poyoyevr) cSwkcv”) “that 

whosoever believeth in Him, may not perish, but may 
have life everlasting. For God sent not His Son into the 
world” (“Non enim misit Deus Filium suum in 

mundum”; 4 *ov yap aTTcaraAev 6 ©cos tov vtov cis rov koct/xov 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 203 

“to judge the world, but that the world may be saved 
by Him. He that believeth in Him is not judged. But 
he that doth not believe, is already judged; because 
he believeth not in the name of the only-begotten Son 
of God” (“quia non credit in nomine unigeneti Filii 

Dei” J “on fj.7] TTCTTLarevKev ets to vvo/xa rov [lovoyevovs vtov tov ®£ou”] 

In verses 3rd and following the Holy Ghost is 
named, He is the “Spirit,” the Personal Spirit, whose 
agency is manifestly divine. The interference that 
He is a Divine Person is indisputable. In verses 
16th and following, “God” is named in relation to 
His Son. Evidently, Jesus named a Person of the 
Trinity, who is not the Holy Ghost. Evidently, 
“God” is the Father, to whom Jesus constantly re¬ 
ferred. The wording of the Latin, and the Greek texts 
leaves no doubt but that the Sonship is that of natural 
filiation. But this natural filiation is that of Jesus, 
the “Logos” Incarnate. Therefore, Jesus, as He says, 
is the Divine Son of the Divine Father. 


SON OF GOD, EQUAL TO THE FATHER, JOHN, 
V., 17-28. 

After the cure of the infirm man at the Probatic 
Pool, the “Jews” persecuted Jesus “because He did 
these things on the Sabbath.” “But Jesus answered 
them: My Father worketh until now; and I work” 
(“Jesus autem respondit eis: Pater meus usque modo 
operatur, et ego operor;” “'08k dTrcKpiWo dvrot?, ‘o % rar^p 
fiov apri. epya£eTaL, Kayi ipyd&fxcu.” 7 ® JeSUS affirmed that 
God, who is His Father, despite the opinion of the 
“Jews” to the contrary, has continued, since the Sab¬ 
bath Day of Creation, to work, by Conservation, 


72Spo Knabenbauor, “In Joan,” pages 205 et seq. 



204 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

Concursus, and Providence, in the supernatural, as 
well as in the natural order. Nor did He mean, nor 
does any one, who believes in the Personal God, under¬ 
stand Him to mean, that the work of God will not 
persist, while the world lasts. Nor can any question 
the fact that Jesus put Himself on an equality with 
the Father by adding—“And I work.” Some of the 
critics, however, have tried to explain this equality as 
one of jurisdiction, but not of divinity in the strict 
sense. But such explanation is futile. Jesus could 
not have the former kind of equality, without neces¬ 
sarily having the latter. He was defending Himself 
from the accusation of breaking the Sabbath ordinance, 
in working a miracle on that day. None but God could 
affirm without blasphemy, that, as God works on the 
Sabbath, so also He works. Besides, His hearers 
rightly understood Him. “Hereupon therefore the 
Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He did not 
only break the Sabbath, but also said God was 
His Father, making Himself equal to God.” More¬ 
over, Jesus was not deterred from proceeding to 
emphasize this equality, by asserting the oneness of 
nature, and, consequently, of operation, in Himself, 
and the Father, as well as by formally assuming the 
title of “Son of God” in this necessarily divine con¬ 
nection. “The Son cannot do anything of Himself, but 
what He seeth the Father doing” (i. e. the Son, who, 
as Divine, sees the operation of God the Father, cannot 
do anything of Himself, especially in opposition to the 
Father, precisely because there is the one principle of 
operation “ad extra” in both; but, on the other hand,) 
“for what things soever He doth, these the Son doth in 
like manner” (because the operation is identical in 
both.) “For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth 
Him all things which Himself doth;” (because the 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 205 

Father communicates to the Son divine science with 
essence); “and greater works than these will be shew 
Him, that you may wonder. For, as the Father raiseth 
up the dead, and giveth life; so the Son also giveth life 
to whom He will. For neither doth the Father judge 
any man, but, hath given all judgment to the Son, 
(who, through His Human Nature, will do greater 
works than He has yet done, by raising the dead to life 
in the resurrection, and by the assuming of the office 
of the judge of mankind.) “That all men may honor the 
Son, as they honor the Father. He who honoreth not 
the Son, honoreth not the Father, who hath sent Him.” 
(i. e., he who does not honor the Incarnate Son, mani¬ 
festing such divine powers, dishonors the Father, who 
sent Him. Moreover, the one, and same divinity of 
Nature being common to Father, and to Son, the Son, 
as such, is entitled to honor, equal to that paid to the 
Father; and, likewise, as Incarnate, is entitled to divine 
worship.) Hence, when Jesus in verses 25th, and 28th, 
formally assumes the title of “Son of God,” He is using 
it by right divine. 

CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. 

MATTHEW, XVI., 16-20. 

In its Messianic aspect, 73 we have already consid¬ 
ered this famous passage of St. Matthew, whose au¬ 
thenticity is assured by the testimony of the Church. 
“Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the 
Son of the living God.” (“Tu est Christus, Filius Dei 

vivi” ; “cveto xptcrro?, 6 vlos tov ®eov rov £wvros”). The 

manner, in which Our Blessed Lord received, as 
well as evoked, this confession of faith by St. Peter, 
shows that it added something to what the latter 


?'SSee pages 108 & 109 of this work; and Knabenbauer, “In S. Mat.,” 
Paris, 1903, vol. II, pages 48 ut seq. 



206 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

had said, after the promise of the Holy Eucha¬ 
rist. “And we have believed and have known that 
Thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” (John, VI., 70). 
On that occasion, St. Peter had doubtless given voice to 
some naturally acquired notion of the Divine Sonship 
of the Messiah. But this time, as Jesus testified from 
His Knowledge of the intervention of His Father, St. 
Peter voiced a Divine Revelation, and plainly confessed 
the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Christ. Thou art the 
Christ, the Son, “6 mos,” “the Begotten,” of the Living 
God, the Eternal “Logos,” who descended from 
heaven (John, VI., 38), and appeared in this world as 
the Messiah. Thou art the one, and same Divine Per¬ 
son, who, by a mystery beyond my comprehension, 
art Son of God, and Christ. Moreover, St. Peter re¬ 
corded in writing (II. Peter, I., 1-4) this belief that 
Jesus, the Son of God, is truly divine. 

Our Blessed Lord formally accepted the fact of 
His Divine Sonship. He blessed St. Peter for testifying 
to it. He promised him the Primacy. After the dec¬ 
larations of Divine Sonship previously made by Our 
Blessed Lord, of which two have been considered, there 
can be no doubt whatsoever of the sense, in which 
He formally acknowledged the truth of what St. Peter 
had said. Certainly, immediately afterwards “He com¬ 
manded His disciples that they should tell no one that 
He was Jesus the Christ,” (Matthew, XVI., 20). But, 
as is evident from the foregoing, “Jesus, the Christ,” 
and Jesus, the Son of God, are two different expres¬ 
sions of the one, divine truth in the mind of the 
Lord. He knew, and proclaimed Himself to be the 
Second Person of the Trinity, Incarnate as the Christ 
Therefore, there is nothing to the objection, that He 
commanded His disciples to tell no one that He was 
the Christ, because He regarded the title of “Son of 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 207 

God,” either as an anterior, or as a posterior, appel¬ 
lation of a merely superhuman, and, in no way, 
strictly divine Messiahship. 

THE ETERNAL SON OF GOD. JOHN, VIII., 58. 

After the reference to the Father’s testimony in 
His behalf, 77 / Our Blessed Lord continued His public 
instructions. His hearers, amongst other things, 
boasted of being “the seed of Abraham” (v. 33rd). 75 
“Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abra¬ 
ham, do the works of Abraham.” (v. 39th). “They 
therefore said to Him: We are not bom of fornication: 
We have one Father, e\en God” (v. 41st). Jesus an¬ 
swered them:—“You are of your father the devil.” 
(v. 44th) “Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but 
I honor my Father, and you have dishonored me. But 
I seek not my own glory: there is one that seeketh, 
and judgeth. Amen, amen, I say to you: If any man 
keep my word, he shall not see death for ever. The 
Jews therefore said: Now we know that Thou hast a 
devil, Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and Thou 
sayest: If any man keep my word, he shall not taste 
death for ever.” (v. 49th-52nd). Thus, His enemies 
maliciously strove to so distort the meaning of His 
words, as to give to the populace the absurd impression, 
that Jesus promised to His followers immunity from 
that bodily death, which even Abraham, and the 
prophets had undergone. They strove to make this 
impression more vivid by insultingly inquiring—“Art 
Thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? 
And the prophets are dead. Whom dost Thou make 
Thyself?” Jesus responded—“If I glorify myself, my 
glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, 


7^See page 197 of this work. 

75See Knabenbauer, “In Joan.,'’ pages 301 et seq. 



208 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

of whom you say that he is your God.” (You may call 
Him your Father in the spiritual sense, just as you call 
Abraham your father, or, rather, ancestor, according to 
the flesh. But He is your God, and thy Father actu¬ 
ally.) Yet, although you say that He is your God, 
you show that you do not know Him (v. 55th), be¬ 
cause you do not bow to His testimony of Me, and are 
not led by Him. Moreover, “Abraham your father re¬ 
joiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was 
glad.” (Abraham, your father, whose works you do 
not do, was, indeed, lesser than I. By Revelation, and 
by faith, he foresaw my day, the day of the Christ, 
the day of the “Logos” Incarnate, and he rejoiced. 
What he foresaw in life, he now from Limbo beholds in 
fact, and rejoices, with the joy of realization, as for¬ 
merly with the joy of hope, and expectation). “The 
Jews therefore said to Him: Thou art not yet fifty 
years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” They dis¬ 
torted His statement that Abraham had seen His day, 
into the implication that He had seen Abraham. They 
thought to confound Him. Nevertheless, they unin¬ 
tentionally afforded Him an opportunity for a clear, 
and striking declaration of His divinity. “Jesus said to 
them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was 
made, I am” (“Amen, amen, dico vobis, antequam Abra¬ 
ham fieret, ego sum;” “ ’ A/xrjv aixrjv Xeyaiv/xlv, 7Tf>LV A/3paa/j. 
yevecrflcu, cyw dfu .” (v. 58). There was here no mere 

declaration of ideal being in the eternal knowledge 
of God, to whom things are as present. “I am” sig¬ 
nify actual perpetuity, and independence of time. 
They are a repetition of the words of Jehovah to Moses 
—“I am, who am.” (Exod. III., 14). So the 
Jews understood them. For they took up stones to 
cast at Him for His supposed blasphemy. But 
he hid Himself and went out of the Temple. (v. 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 209 

59th). Since their God, as Our Blessed Lord said, was 
actually His Father, and since He Himself had existed 
from all eternity, He formally declared Himself the 
Eternal Son of God. 

ONE DIVINE NATURE OF FATHER AND SON. 

JOHN, X., 30. 

We have previously considered the Messianic as¬ 
pect of St. John, X., 22 et seq., as well as the divine tes¬ 
timony of the works of Jesus in the name of His 
Father, 76 which is contained in it. There is no need 
to revert again to the character of the juridical in¬ 
quiry by “the Jews,” or to the defence of the general 
form of the exposition of the Divine Sonship used 
by Jesus. The theory of the critics that Jesus Himself 
proposed a merely metaphorical divinity, on which the 
author of the Fourth Gospel enlarged, can be no longer 
urged. Indeed, the manner, in which “the Jews” re¬ 
ceived the full statement of Jesus is in itself the refu¬ 
tation of that theory. However, we shall come back 
again upon one sentence of that statement, which, as 
previously noted also, is an asseveration that the Son 
and the Father are two, distinct Persons in One God. 
“I and the Father are one” (“Ego, et Pater unum 
sumus”; “cy^ Ka ' L o Trails tv io-fiev” Verse 30th) 77 Of this 
declaration Corluy says—haec sententia Christi sem¬ 
per habita est ut dogmatis consubstantialitatis Verbi 
cum Patre formula scripturistica.” To the Arians, 
Socinians, Unitarians, and most modern critics, who 
have condescended to examine into it, this declara¬ 
tion of Jesus has signified a mere unity of mind, 

76See pages 108-111 and 197-198 of this work; Frauzelin, pages 49 et 
seq.; Corluy, vol. II, pages 33 et seq.; and Knabeaoau-v, -‘In .loan.,” 
pages 348 et seq. 

7?See Corluy, vol. II, pages 33 et seq.; Frauzelin, pages 27 & 28. and 48 
et seq.; Knabennauer, ‘ In Joan.,” pages 352 et seq. 



210 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

thought, plan, or unparalleled, reciprocal love, but not 
a substantial unity. It has signified, in other 
words, which have become classic, “a moral, not a phy¬ 
sical unity.” Even those critics of the present, who 
admit that it signifies oneness of power with the 
Father in the work of salvation, deny, nevertheless, 
that it likewise implies the dogma “consubstantialitatis 
Verbi cum Patrol 

It is true that the Fathers, as well as subsequent 
commentators of the Church, have disputed over the 
question, whether this declaration of the Lord is to be 
primarily taken as an independent, and, as it were, 
absolute assertion, or as the minor premise of an argu¬ 
ment, from identity of operation of Father and Son to 
identity of nature, opened up in the two, preceding 
verses. All, however, have always admitted that the 
declaration under consideration affords the reason of 
the identity of the saving power of Father and Son, by 
enunciating the unity of substance, and diversity of 
person. It makes no practical difference whether it 
be deemed to primarily import unity of operation, and, 
hence, of nature; or to primarily state unity of nature, 
and, hence, of operation. The fact, that it affirms one, 
divine nature of Father, and Son, stands in either 
case. Ultimately, at least, it teaches unity of opera¬ 
tion, because of unity of principle of operation. Never¬ 
theless, since this declaration is evidently fundamental 
in the full statement of the Lord; and since it should 
be so explained, as to offset modern errors of inter¬ 
pretation, we shall handle it as a categorical assertion, 
whose meaning is clarified by the subsequent, as well 
as by the preceding context. 

“Are one,” “unum sumus,” “ tv co-^ev.” Nowhere 
in Holy Writ is any creature, man, angel, or arch¬ 
angel said to be one with God in absolute conjunction. 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 211 

“One,” especially in the Latin, and the Greek, means 
one thing, entity, being. It regards an individual sub¬ 
stance, or nature. Without addition, or modification, 
(as in I. Cor. VI., 17, “he who is joined to the Lord, is 
one spirit”), it implies necessarily essential identity. 
Therefore, the Father, and the Son are “One,” because 
of identity of nature. The whole Bible, and Jesus Him¬ 
self always taught One God. The Son of God is God. 
The Father is God. There is but One God. The Father 
and the Son are One God. Therefore, the Son, with 
Him, whom He calls His Father and True God, is one 
in divinity, and, consequently, in the plenitude of power, 
which is one in number in Father, and Son. According 
to its direct, and natural meaning, the predicate “one,” 
“unum” “ ev,” in the neuter gender, expresses unity 
of essence, or nature, of Father and Son. In the 28th 
verse, Jesus declared His power to give life everlasting 
to His sheep, and added—“no man shall pluck them out 
of my hand.” He then explained this power, mani¬ 
festly divine, and communicated from the Father, in 
such a way as to show that the omnipotence is in the 
Father, and is totally communicated in the Son. “That 
which my Father hath given me, is greater than all ; 78 
and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my 
Father.” “No man shall pluck (rapiet) them out of 
my hand.” “No one can snatch (potest rapere) them 
out of the hand of my Father.” Jesus spoke of the 
“hand,” or power, of the Son, and of “the hand,” or 
power, of the Father. There is however, no distinc¬ 
tion in hand, or power, of Son and Father. For that, 
which is communicated in the Son, as in the commu¬ 
nicating Father, “is greater than all” (i. e. is beyond 
comparison, because of its infinity). The distinction is 

7SOn the reading of this part of the 29th vere-3 see FrausteJln, page 28; 

Corluy, loc. cit. page 37 ; and Knabenbauer, page 354. 



212 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

in this, that it is the Father, who communicates, and 
the Son, who, in the communication, have the one, 
and same power. But divine power is divine essence. 
Therefore, said Jesus, “I and the Father are one.” 
Hence, this declaration, in so far as it is an explanation 
of what immediately precedes it, is the direct, and ex¬ 
plicit affirmation of oneness of nature, subjoined to the 
antecedent, indirect, and implicit one. After Jesus had 
said—“I and the Father are one,” “the Jews” took up 
stones to stone Him. (v. 31st). “Jesus answered 
them: Many good works I have shewed you from my 
Father.” (v. 32nd). Since, from His Father, proceed¬ 
ing from His Father, from whom He has the divinity 
of works communicated with the divine nature, Jesus 
immediately reiterated, but less plainly, His consub- 
stantiality with the Father. Further on, in v. 38th, 
He again repeated the same thing, in somewhat differ¬ 
ent form, telling His interrogators to judge from His 
works; and, thus, to know, and believe “that the Father 
is in me, and I in the Father.” Such was His closing 
declaration. The assertion—“I and the Father are 
one,” the fundamental reason of the dispute with “the 
Jews,” expressed consubstantiality. The Father sanc¬ 
tified His Son, and sent Him into the world. Hence, 
He, Jesus, rightly called Himself “the Son of God,” 
(v. 36th), being one in nature with the Father, but dis¬ 
tinct in Person. Thus, the assertion—“I and the 
Father are one,” because it means oneness of nature, 
is, likewise, the foundation of the rest of the discourse. 
The closing declaration—“the Father is in me, and I 
in the Father,” 79 which is a formal declaration of “cir- 
cumincession,” like the declaration of Divine Sonship 
of verse 36th, is an elucidation of the oneness of nature 
of Father, and Son of verse 30th. Moreover, this for- 


79See page 198 of this work. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 213 

mal declaration of John, X., 30, is, at once, the confirma¬ 
tion, and the complement, of what Our Blessed Lord 
had asserted in John, V., 17 et seq. 80 Its meaning has 
been vindicated by its own construction, by its relation 
to what precedes, and by its bearing upon what follows. 

THE SUPREME SELF-REVELATION. I AM THE 
SON OF GOD. 

In the work, “The Gospel and the Church,” 81 
Loisy took the different Synoptic accounts of the an¬ 
swers of Jesus to Caiphas, and to the Sanhedrim; com¬ 
pared them together; and erroneously concluded that 
Jesus had made the title of “Son of God” exclusively 
His, in the sense of “Messiah,” with the incommuni¬ 
cable function of vicarship of God for the eschatological 
Kingdom. In his last work, Loisy practically retracted 
this theory as untenable, although, in a way, he did 
worse, by relegating all the Synoptic accounts of the 
answers of Jesus, St. Mark's included, to the region 
of interpolations of subsequent traditions. 82 However, 
the Church testimony is assurance for all in the Gos¬ 
pels. It has already been proven that the answer of 
Jesus to Caiphas, as recorded in St. Mark, XIV., 62, 83 
was neither meant, nor understood, as the profession 
of an eschatological, and metaphorically divine Mes- 
siahship. “Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed 
God?” (“Tu es Christus, Filius Dei benedicti”; el 6 
^ptcrros, 6 vlvs tov evX .oyrjTov /’ i. e., celebruti, *blessed,” a 
designation of God commonly used, by the Jews). “I 
am” (“Ego sum;” “ ’E ywei/u”). Jesus meant that He is 

SOSee pages 203 et seq. of this work. 

8lSee Lepin, pages 191 & 321. 

82Lepin, pages 526 et seq. 

83 (see pages 115-117 of this work and Knabenbauer “In S. Mark,” pages 
396 et seq. 



214 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

the Christ, the Son of the Blessed, or God, in the sense, 
in which He had been hitherto declaring Himself. 
Caiphas and the assembly well understood the sense, in 
which Jesus declared Himself Son of God, if only from 
what, on the day previous, He had inculcated about 
Himself as “Ha-Adon.” That the additional title “Son 
of Man” detracted nothing from His claim of divinity, 
is shown by their conduct. They accused Him of blas¬ 
phemy, and condemned Him to death. 

The response of Jesus to Caiphas was absolute, 
and unconditional. “I am.” It was in perfect accord 
with that recorded in St. Matthew, XXVI., 64. 8 * “And 
the high-priest said to Him: I adjure Thee by the living 
God, that Thou tell us if Thou be the Christ, the Son 
of God;” (“Adjuro te per Deum vivum, ut dicas nobis 
si tu es Christus, Filius Dei; ” “e£opKi£<o ae Kara tov ©eov 
tov jvtos Iva r/fuv el7rr]<s et <rv el 6 ^parros 6 vios tov ©eou.”) This 

was undoubtedly the complete interrogation of 
Caiphas, which is somewhat abbreviated in St. Mark. 
Its form was juridical. It placed the accused under 
oath. “I adjure Thee by the living God” meant “I 
cause thee to swear by the living God.” When all else 
failed, the accused was thus called upon to incriminate, 
or exculpate himself. Jesus, therefore, in respect for 
authority, howsoever unworthily exercised, and under 
oath, and, besides, with fore knowledge of the Crucifix¬ 
ion, answered—“Thou hast said it;” (“Tu dixisti:” 
“21) etrras. ” In our language, “I am he, whom you 
name,” or as St. Mark briefly puts it, “I am.”) This 
is a solemn, Aramaic, affirmative formula. It is not 
equivocal. It is not an evasion of a positive response. 
It is the same answer, as given to Judas, (in verse 
25th), as, likewise, to Pilate, (in ch. XXVII., 11). 

On Good Friday morning, 85 before the formal ses- 


8Jf See Knabenbauer, “In S. Mat.,” vol. II, pages 474 et seq. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 215 


sion of the Sanhedrim, Our Blessed Lord, already pre¬ 
judged, and under the shadow of approaching death, 
declared, in the final, and most solemn manner, His Di¬ 
vine Sonship absolutely, and, as it were, independently 
of His Messiahship. In His supreme self-revelation, He 
had already sworn before Caiphas, and the assembly, 
that He is the Christ, the Son of God. Despite the 
cavillings of the critics, He had affirmed under oath, 
that He is the Christ, the Son of God, because He is 
the Eternal “Logos,” Incarnate as the Christ, or Mes¬ 
siah. But, as if to preclude all possibility of future, 
rationalistic theories about His character, on the very 
day of His Crucifixion, He made His last manifestation 
of His Divine Sonship, as it were, “in sensu diviso.” 
The mode of procedure in the formal session of the 
Sanhedrim was the occasion of this. In their ultimate 
effort to brand Jesus as a blasphemer before the Jewish 
populace, the ancients, chief priests, and scribes first 
inquired whether He called Himself the Messiah, or 
not. 86 “If Thou be the Christ, tell us” (“Si tu es 
ChristUS, die nobis; ” “E l <rvel oxpwtos, eiirov rifiev”) If 
thou be the Christ in our sense of royal Man-Messiah, 
tell us. If Thou be the Christ in the sense of the 
synagogues north of Jerusalem, tell us. If Thou be 
the Christ, in the sense of your own interpretation of 
the Messianic Predictions, tell us. Having obtained an 
answer, similar to that in St. Matthew, XXVI., 64, and 
St. Mark, XIV., 62, they put the second and direct 
question—“Art Thou then the Son of God?” (“Tu 
ergo es Filius Dei?”; “SvoSvet 6 vios rov ®7rov”?) Jesus 
answered—“You say that I am.” (“Vas dicitis, quia 
e cr o sum;” “Y/aci? A.ey ere, otl iyoi ct/xi. ) This is another 
affirmative formula, somewhat like that of St. Mat- 


85Matthew, XXVII, 1 ; Mark, XV, 1; Luke, XXII, G6 
8GLuke. XXII, 66. See Knabenbauer, In S. Luc., 
606 et seq. 


Paris, 1905, pages 




216 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

thew, XXVI., 64. You say truly, or, rather, speak 
truly,” “ on,” “quia,” because I am. So the Sanhe¬ 
drim understood it. For they immediately exclaimed 
—“What need we any farther testimony? For 
we ourselves have heard it from His own mouth.” 
What need have we of any testimony of false, and 
contradictory character ? What we have failed to prove, 
He Himself has confessed. Let the people learn from 
His own lips, whether we are justified in condemning 
Him, or not. Moreover, they announced to Pilate— 
“We have a law; and according to the law he ought to 
die, because he made Himself the Son of God.” (John 
XIX., 7). In fine, what Jesus meant, in His last, 
formal declaration of Divine Sonship, has been amply 
demonstrated in the consideration of His previous 
statements, especially that of St. John, X., 30 et seq. 


THE PRACTICAL DEMONSTRATION BY JESUS OF 

THE MEANING OF HIS DIVINE SONSHIP. 

There is always a chance for those so inclined to 
quibble over the abstract meanings of the words, and 
phrases used by the Lord in declaring Himself. But, 
after their own admissions about the moral dignity 
of Jesus, and, especially, after the proof of His divine 
commission, and mission, there is no logical chance for 
the critics to doubt the practical demonstration of His 
formal declarations of Divine Sonship. On many occa¬ 
sions, He talked, and acted in a manner inexplicable, ex¬ 
cepting on the basis of the truth of those declarations 
as previously explained. Thus, He not only affirmed 
His right to divine worship, as in St. John, v. 23, but 
He also took that worship in fact. In this regard, the 
Greek and Latin terms rendered into English, as adora- 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 217 

tion, do not necessarily signify divine worship in them¬ 
selves. They may imply in themselves the prostration 
of a servant before a master, or of a subject before 
a King, as in St. Matthew, XVIII., 26. But they may 
also imply the honor due to God alone, as in the reply 
of Our Blessed Lord to Satan—“The Lord, thy God, 
shalt thou adore,” or in the saying of the Samaritan 
woman (John, IV., 20). Doubtless, many of those, 
who, at various times, prostrated themselves before 
Jesus, had no clear conception of paying divine wor¬ 
ship to Him. Yet, He, who, in His Human Nature, 
bent down before the Father, nevertheless, never re¬ 
fused such homage. If He, the meek and humble 
of heart, and the stern rebuker of pride, as in the 
Pharisees, had not also been divine in Person, and 
Nature, He could not consistently have so acted. Be¬ 
sides, notably in the case of the cured, blind man of St. 
John, IX., He formally received divine adoration ex¬ 
pressly given to the Son of God. We pass without com¬ 
ment over the notion that the account of the miracle 
in question is an allegory, because the 39th verse 
shows that Jesus had some reference to the cure of 
the spiritually blind, and the darkening of the intel¬ 
lects of the obdurate. He asked the man miraculously 
cured of blindness—“Dost Thou believe in the Son of 
God ?” (In credis in Filium Dei ?” “ %v mo-reveis hs rbv 
vlbvrSv avdpuTrov?”) 87 In English, and in the Vulgate,— 
Dost Thou believe in the Son of God. In Greek,— 
Dost Thou believe in the Son of Man ? But the “Son 
of Man,” is He, who is between God and the 
angels; (Mark, XIII., 32); who worked miracles on 
this earth; and who is to be Divine Judge on the Last 
Day. He is the Messiah, and, consequently, He is the 
Incarnate Son of God. The man inquired—“Who is He, 


87See Knabenbauer, “In Joan.,’’ pages 332 & 333. 



218 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

Lord, that I may believe in Him?” “Who is He,” I 
ask of you, who cured me; and I am prepared to believe 
what you say. “Who is He,” this “Son of Man,” this 
Christ, of whom we have heard out of Law, that he 
abideth forever (John, XII., 34) ? “And Jesus said 
to him: Thou hast both seen Him: and it is He that 
talketh with Thee.” The man said—“I believe Lord. 
And falling down, he adored Him.” This evidently 
divine adoration Jesus received, and approved of (v. 
39th.) 

Again, Jesus proclaimed Himself superior to the 
Law, 88 and, hence, necessarily God, the Son of God. 
Moreover, He is “Lord of the Sabbath. 89 Hence, He is 
Jehovah, who instituted the Sabbath, and, who alone 
could legislate on its observance. “My Father worketh 
until now; and I work.” This was equivalent to say¬ 
ing that “God was His Father, making Himself equal 
to God.” Further, He asserted that He could forgive 
sins; and He proved, by the manifestation of accom¬ 
panying, miraculous power, that He did forgive them. 
Thus, He said to the man sick of the palsy ,— 90 “Be 
of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee.” The 
forgiveness of sins was acknowledged amongst the 
Jews to be a strictly divine prerogative. Hence, the 
scribes present said within themselves—“He blas- 
phemeth.” But Jesus read the thoughts within their 
minds, and asked—“Why do you think evil in your 
hearts? Whether is easier to say, Thy sins are for¬ 
given Thee; or, to say, Arise and walk ? But that you 
may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth 
to forgive sins; then said he to the man sick of the 
palsy: Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house. 
And he arose, and went into his house.” Besides, He 


88Matthew, V, 17, 21, 22, 32, 34, 39, 44 ; XIX, S'; Luke, VI 26-36. 
89Matthew, XII, 8 ; Mark, II, 28; Luke, VI, 5. 

SOMatthew, IX, 1-7 ; Knabenbauer, “In S. Mat.,” vol. I, pages 351 et seq. 



Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 219 


not only forgave sins Himself, but also conferred this 
divine power on others. “Whose sins you shall for¬ 
give, they are forgiven them.” 91 Only because God, 
the Son of God, could He so act. Further, He promised 
the Holy Ghost to His Apostles. The Holy Ghost, the 
Third Person of the Trinity, by whose action He had 
been conceived, and made flesh in the womb of Mary 
Immaculate (Luke, I., 35), and by whose voice He 
had been proclaimed Son of God (Luke, III., 22), 
nevertheless, is subject to Him. “And I send the prom¬ 
ise of my Father upon you: but stay you in the city, 
till you be endued with power from on high.” 92 And I, 
Jesus, send you what God promised through the 
prophets. Because He Himself is God, the Son, He 
sends what the Father promised. He fulfills the prom¬ 
ise made by the Father, because He and the Father 
are One. Hence, He can even send the Third Person 
of the Trinity, who proceeds from the Father and the 
Son. In the One Nature of God there are three dis¬ 
tinct Persons. There are four relations, paternity, fili¬ 
ation, “spiratio activa” on the part of the Father and 
Son, and “spiratio passiva,” or procession, on the part 
of the Holy Ghost. The active spiration is “unica 
spiratio tanquam ab unico principio.” Beside the mis¬ 
sion, or procession in relation to temporal effect, of the 
“Logos,” Incarnate, there is that of the Holy Ghost 
as Paraclete. Jesus as God, Son of God, and in no 
other possible way, speaks of sending the Holy Ghost, 
as, likewise, of the Father sending Him (John, XIV., 
16), and of sending Him from the Father (John, XV., 
26). 93 

By supernatural works, the Father testified that 
Jesus was His mouthpiece; and, consequently, that 


9/John XX, 23 ; Knabenbauer, “In S. Joan.,” pages 579 et set]. 
92Luke’, XXIV, 49; Knabenbauer, “In S. Luc., page 6o5. 

93See Pohle-Preuss, “The Divine Trinity,” pages 96 ct seq. 




220 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

Jesus uttered absolute truth. But, besides, Jesus, as 
God, Son of God, testified to Himself, by means of 
supernatural works performed in His own name, and, 
consequently, His testimony, as previously set forth, 
is, likewise, directly from God, the Second Person of 
the Trinity. Thus, for instance, in the cure of the 
two, blind men near Capharnaum, Jesus asked ;— 9i 
“Do you believe, that I can do this unto you? They 
say to him, Yea, Lord; (“creditis quia hoc possum 
facere vobis? Dicunt ei; utique Domine;” “ Tno-TcWe 

on tovto SvvdfMu 7TOLr)(rcu; XiyovcTLv avTOi' rtu, Kvpte”) “Then he 

touched their eyes, saying: According to your faith, 
be it done unto you. And their eyes were opened.” 
It is “ I,” “ Lord,” “ Dominus,” “ Kyrios,” who, by 
my own, divine power, and authority, work this 
miracle. So, also, in raising the son of widow of 
Naim to life, He said — 95 “Young man, I say to thee, 
arise.” (“Adolescens, tibi dico, surge;” “NamW, aol 
/\eya>, iyepOrjTL.” “And he that was dead, sat up.” This 
case is even more striking than the former. For, 
here, He uses His power, like that of the Father's 
to vivify, whom He wills. (John, V., 21). Moreover, 
as God, Son of God, He could, and did confer 
the power of supernatural works upon His chosen 
ones. (Matthew, X., 8.) “Heal the sick, raise the 
dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils.” What He 
said to the Apostles, He said also to the seventy-two 
disciples. “Heal the sick that are therein, and say to 
them: The Kingdom of God is come nigh to you.” 
(Luke, X., 9). The twelve did do such miraculous 
deeds. “They cast out many devils, and anointed with 
oil many that were sick, and healed them.” (Mark, 
VI., 13). “And the seventy-two returned with joy, 

^Matthew, IX, 28-30. Knabenbauer, “In S. Mat.,” vol I. pages 367 et 
95Luke, VII, 14 & 15. Knabenbauer, “In S. Luo.,” pages 254 et soq. 




Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 221 

saying*: Lord, the devils also are subject to us in 
thy name.” (Luke, X., 17). 96 In brief, this is what 
Our Blessed Lord practically demonstrated to be the 
sense of His formal teaching about Himself. He is the 
Divine Son of God, in whom the Divine Nature and the 
Human Nature are hypostatically united. (See Fran- 
zelin, pages 284 et seq). 

RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION. 

From the scientific point of view, one prediction, 
ancient, and sufficiently explicit, would have sufficed, 
as the groundwork of a historical investigation, into 
the identity of the Personal Messiah. Indeed, one such 
prediction, clear in meaning, and certainly ancient, au¬ 
thentic, and integral, would have sufficed, not only for 
the purpose of investigation into the identity of the 
Messiah, but also for the test of its own supernatural¬ 
ness, in the hypothesis of the fulfillment of that por¬ 
tion of its content, which is capable of experimental 
verification. If both such verification, and the worth 
of the whole prediction, as such, could be scientifically 
demonstrated, there could be no possibility for suspi¬ 
cion, either of the manufacture of the prediction, in 
whole, or in part, or of the invention of things, de¬ 
manded in its fulfillment. In the Old Testament, par¬ 
ticularly in the Canon of Esdras, as preserved by the 
Jews themselves, there are Messianic Predictions. Not 
all are equally clear, and literally Messianic. We se¬ 
lected an ample, and representative number of those, 
whose antiquity, authenticity, and integralness are 
vouched for by internal evidence, as well as by the un¬ 
animous tradition of the Jews, anterior to the Chris- 

96No mention is made in the Gospels of the fact of raising from tho dead 
bv Apostles, or by disciples. But the clause “raise the dead” belongs 
in St. Matthew, X, 8. See Knabenbauer, vol. I, pages 893 & 394. 
On the anointing with oil, see Knabenbauer, “In S. Mar.,” pages 164 
& 165. On the extent of miraculous power in I he disciples, see 
Knabenbauer, “In S. Luc.,” page 343. 



222 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

tian Era. Their respective meanings were manifested 
by the rules of sound hermeneutics. It was made 
evident that they foretold the birthplace of the Mes¬ 
siah: His Incarnation in the womb of the Virgin by 
excellence: His public advent, at the age of thirty 
years; 483 years after the issuing of the decree by 
Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem, and, consequently, in 
A. D. 26; His violent death, at Jerusalem, 31/2 years 
later, or in A. D. 30: His extraordinary prerogatives, 
and deeds with the assistance of Jehovah; and His 
foundation of His Kingdom in His vicarious sufferings, 
as described in detail. Intrinsically pervading the 
statements of these phases of prophecy, which are cap¬ 
able of experimental verification, entered the contrast 
between the temporal birth, at Bethlehem, of Him, who 
became Messiah at His Incarnation, and His anterior, 
eternal generation; and the announcements that He is 
“Emmanuel,” the Divine Saviour, and the Priest-King, 
both on earth, and in heaven. Moreover, David, who, 
in Psalm CIX., wrote of the Priest-King, and the judge 
on the Last Day, and, who, in Psalm XXI., foretold 
facts about the suffering Messiah, easily discernible in 
Him, if truly occurring, expressly represented God as 
affirming in Psalm, II., 7, that the Christ is His Son by 
natural, divine filiation. Therefore, these selected 
Messianic Predictions flatly contradict the notion of a 
metaphorically divine, or a merely eschatological Mes¬ 
siah. They depict Him as the Divine Son of God, who 
became Messiah at His Incarnation, and who, during 
His sojourn on earth, and by His vicarious sufferings, 
founded His universal, spiritual Kingdom, which is 
here, as the Church Militant, and which is perfected in 
heaven, as the Church Triumphant. Hence, also, the 
proper interpretation of these prophecies eradicates 
that error about the royal Man-Messiah, which sprang 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 223 

from the official teaching of the Temple, of the time 
of Jesus. Moreover, with these prophecies as the basis 
of further elucidation, it has been shown, as should be 
acknowledged by all orthodox Jews, and conservative 
Protestants, that the Divine Sonship is the underlying 
principle of correlation of all the Messianic Predictions 
in the Canon of Esdras. 

The verification of the fulfillment of our selected 
prophecies, was made, and certified to, by eye-wit¬ 
nesses, who could know, and who did tell the strict 
truth. They were sane. They were slow to believe. 
But, having become satisfied that Jesus is “the Christ, 
the Son of God,” they preached Jesus Crucified, de¬ 
spite torture, and martyrdom. They, and their con¬ 
temporaries, who wrote under their supervision, have 
left records of the fulfillment in Jesus of the Messianic 
birth, public advent, divine prerogatives, deeds, teach¬ 
ings, mission, and violent death. They have also certi¬ 
fied that other prophecies, outside of those selected, 
were fulfilled in Jesus, particularly the prophecy of His 
Resurrection. Thus, they justified the belief of the 
Apostolic Age, and of subsequent ages of Christianity, 
that Jesus is the Son of God, Incarnate as Messiah, 
and founder of the Roman, Catholic Church. Since 
the predictions of the sense-perceptible facts of the life 
of Jesus, the Messiah, were necessarily supernatural, 
and since they were integrally, and essentially con¬ 
nected with the announcements of the supra-sensible 
attributes of the Messiah, above all, of the Divine Son- 
ship; their fulfillment in Jesus, the Messiah, neces¬ 
sarily implies in Him the Divine Sonship, the funda¬ 
mental fact, and the essence of all the prophetic utter¬ 
ances about the Messiah. Moreover, after the fact, 
the writers of the New Testament, should be conceded, 
even by those, who deny their Inspiration, to have 


224 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

had, at least, a special, and providential mission in con¬ 
serving, and in propagating the “scientific” knowledge, 
and the belief in the divinity of Jehovah's Christ. Cer¬ 
tainly, they were on a plane far higher than that of 
the ordinary praisers of the master of some school of 
religious thought. 

Critics, like Harnack, or Loisy, are illogical. They 
claim to abide by the authentic declarations of Jesus, 
the truthful. But they start off from the postulates, 
as erroneous, as gratuitous, that the supernatural is 
impossible, and that the Incarnation is incredible. Thus, 
they have predetermined what they will accept as the 
authentic statements of Jesus about Himself, just as 
they have arbitrarily denied all His supernatural works. 
But they fly in the face of reason, by rejecting the 
scientific evidence of what Jesus both said, and did. 
Prescinding from the fact that the Gospels are the 
Word of God, they, nevertheless, stand as unimpeach¬ 
able, historical works. Internal evidence, as well as 
unassailable, external testimony, uphold their histor¬ 
icity. But what puts them beyond all question, is the 
fact that they are part of the written archives of the 
uninterrupted, living, centralized organism, which pro¬ 
duced, guards, and interprets them. Therefore, the 
least to be said, is that the Jesus of the Gospels, is 
the Jesus of history. But, Jesus of the Gospels, di¬ 
vinely attested, especially by supernatural works, pro¬ 
claimed Himself the Messiah. Therefore, ipso facto, 
in virtue of the foregoing, He is the Incarnate Son of 
God. But, He not only declared Himself the Messiah, 
but also, both in general, and in particular, He applied 
to Himself the Messianic Predictions. He thus declared 
Himself the One Shepherd; the Redeemer from sin, 
who was to die for His flock; the founder of the King¬ 
dom of God; “Ha-Adon” in this world, and, besides, 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 225 

Judge on the Last Day. He pointed out the accom¬ 
plishment in Himself of Isaias, XXXV., inasmuch as, 
under the Messianic titles of “Son of David/’ and “Son 
of Man,” He was performing miracles. He told His 
enemies to search the Scriptures, from the Pentateuch 
onward, and, thus, to learn about His identity with the 
Messiah. After the Resurrection, He appeared to His 
own; and, beginning with the Law of Moses, He showed 
them how the Messianic utterances in the Scriptures 
were fulfilled in Himself. His final, solemn, formal 
declarations, before Caiphas, and before the Sanhe¬ 
drim, are convincing, and conclusive in themselves 
alone. Their Messianic affirmation is as clear as the 
light of day. Nor, now, can it be claimed that any 
shadow darkens their real Messianic meaning. 

Humanly speaking from the scientific standpoint, 
there was no need of direct, formal declarations of di¬ 
vinity from Jesus, independently, as it were, of the as¬ 
sertions of Messiahship. The One Person is Messiah, 
because He is the Incarnate Son of God, and, being the 
Eternal “Logos,” He is, as predicted, and as affirmed 
by Himself, Incarnate as Messiah. Evidently, all His 
statements about Himself should be interpreted accord¬ 
ing to their mutual interdependence. It is as unfair, 
as it is unscientific, to endeavor to isolate certain of 
those statements, and, their authenticity not being 
logically disputable, to strive to explain away their 
respective, obvious meanings. To the confusion of the 
rationalistic critics, the Lord did utter direct, formal 
declarations of divinity in those very statements iso¬ 
lated for discussion, and attack. We have vindicated 
their traditionally accepted interpretations. They sig¬ 
nify that Jesus is the God-Man, the “Logos” Incarnate. 
He is the Eternal Son, and, as such, Equal to the 
Father. There is One Divine Nature of Father, and 


226 Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 

Son. As the collation of St. John, III., 5 with X., BO, 
evinces, there is One Divine Nature of Father, Son, and 
Personal Holy Ghost. Thus, Jesus taught the Divine 
Trinity in Unity, Three Persons in One God, He being 
the Second Person. “And the Word was made flesh, 
and dwelt among us.” 

The self-revelation of Jesus was progressive. He, 
who knew all about Himself, permitted the meaning of 
the term, “Father,” which He used from the beginning 
of His public ministry, and, even, previously, to gradu¬ 
ally dawn upon His hearers. He did not, by any exer¬ 
cise of divine omnipotence, interfere with free will, 
and individual responsibility, either in His chosen ones, 
or in the “council of the malignant.” At the appointed 
time, came the culmination, the supreme revelation un¬ 
der oath, in the most solemn, and public manner, and 
under the penalty of the Crucifixion. In fine, He left no 
opportunity to those so inclined to quibble over the ab¬ 
stract meanings of the wordings of His Divinity, and re¬ 
lations to the Father, and to the Holy Ghost, whom He 
sent, and whom the Father sent, and whom He sent 
from the Father. Just as the Father gave testimony 
of Him through the prophets, and through the super¬ 
natural works, which Jesus performed in the name of 
the Father, so also the Son gave testimony of Himself, 
and His testimony is true. For He spoke, and acted as 
God, Son of God, “Logos” Incarnate. He performed 
miracles in His own name. He exercised other divine 
prerogatives. We do not profess to understand the 
mystery of the Trinity, which Jesus taught. But He 
showed us that, while there is but one divine principle 
of operation “ad extra,” nevertheless, certain absolute 
attributes, and operations, which are essentially com¬ 
mon to the Trinity, may also be ascribed to One Divine 
Person in particular, for the purpose of clarifying the 


Son of God in the Messianic Prophecies 227 

Hypostatic Character of that Person. We do not pro¬ 
fess to understand the mystery of the Incarnation. But 
we do profess to understand that the Incarnation, and 
the Trinity, while above reason's penetration into their 
intimate natures, are not opposed to reason's natural 
light. In conclusion, this is the gist of this whole work. 
Jesus, of the Messianic Predictions of the Old Testa¬ 
ment, and of the Gospels of the New Testament, is the 
Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, in whom 
the Divine Nature and the Human Nature are hypo- 
statically united. 





































Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 




























































